This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act , 1994 against order dated 22.3.2010 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi proposing following substantial question of law
In this tax appeal, Tribunal upholds Section 78 penalty, sets aside Section 76. Learn about the mutually exclusive nature and legal implications.
M/s Sasken Communication v. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & Ors (Karnataka High Court) The contract for development of software in question are not works contract but contract for service simplicitor and hence not liable to tax under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The contract for development of software is not a composite contract consisting of a contract of service and contract for sale of goods. It is an indivisible contract of service only.
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Parle Bisleri Ltd challenging the ruling against it by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in an excise dispute over its soft drink flavours and the use of their brand names. Apart from Parle Bisleri, two others involved were Parle Exports Ltd and Parle International Ltd. Parle Bisleri claimed excise benefits as a small scale industry in the 1990’s. The claim was rejected by the tribunal. It appealed to the Supreme Court, which stated that the tribunal was right in denying the benefit by clubbing the products of the three companies. The court said: “the three companies in question were intertwined in their operation and management… It would likely seem that the purported fragmentation of the manufacturing process was but a mere ploy to avail of the SSI exemption. Piercing the corporate veil, when the notions of beneficial ownership and interdependency come into the picture, are no longer disputed questions. On this count, therefore, we have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming the order of the tribunal,which was justified entirely through the precedent set by this court.”
Whether, only because the assessee can deal in shares as per the memorandum of objects, any transactions undertaken by the assessee for sale or purchase of shares, in the earlier years is to be treated as business transaction, and the gains and loss resulting from the same to be assessed under the head business income and not capital gains.
ITAT was right in law and on merits by deleting the additions of income made as interest earned/acquired on the loan advanced to M/s Shaw Wallace by considering the interest as doubtful and unrealizable.
Primarily, the intention with which an assessee starts his activity is the most important factor. If shares are purchased from own funds, with a view to keep the funds in equity shares to earn considerable return on account of enhancement in the value of share over a period then merely because the assessee liquidates its investment within six months
SAP India Pvt. Ltd., the Appellants, entered into end-user license agreements with clients for maintenance of information technology software already installed in the computer systems and made operational. Show cause notice (SCN) was issued alleging
A recent decision of the Special Bench (SB) of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) [AIT-2010-503-ITAT] in the case of Sulzer India Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the issue of whether settlement of deferred sales tax liability, under an option made available by the statutory authority to pay the net present value (NPV)
SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) is engaged in the provision of consultancy, licensing and maintenance or ERP software. The Commissioner, Service Tax had confirmed service tax demand of INR 20 crores on the Appellant under maintenance and repair’ service during the period July 2004 and January 2006. In addition to the service tax demand, the Commissioner had also confirmed interest and penalties against the Appellant.
