The Court, by referring the case back to the assessing officer, appears to have accepted the contention that only services rendered by humans can be regarded as a technical service. The ruling has particular significance for the technology sector where similar interpretation issues on taxability of technical services are common. Further as held by the Court, in such cases technical evidence would be required for establishing that there was no human intervention involved in the process.
Where an undertaking existed in the same place, form and substance and did carry on the same business before and after the change in legal character of the form of organization, the taxpayer is eligible for deduction.
Unless the conduct of the party suggests that it had a mala fide intent, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. An attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits, rather than to conclude it merely on the basis of technicalities.
Assessee has not made out a case for total waiver of pre-deposit and keeping in view the total facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the assessee to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) within a period of four weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance amount of Service Tax and penalty shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without prior notice.
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT,, ITA 626/2010 and W.P. 758/2010 dated 12 August 2010, – Bombay High Court rules on prospective operation of Rule 8D and upholds the constitutional validity of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D.
The High Court held that notice issued for reopening the assessment which could be rectified under section 154 is invalid.
The assessee, a hotel, incurred expenditure on acquiring licenses and permissions from various government bodies. This was classified as “goodwill” in the books and depreciation was claimed on the ground that it was an “intangible asset” u/s 32(1)(ii). The AO allowed the claim. The CIT passed an order u/s 263 in which he took the view that the AO had not applied his mind to the issue and that the order was “erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of the revenue”. The CIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh order. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal: (i) The CIT had not recorded any finding to show how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Merely because the AO had not examined whether the approvals / registrations etc. amounted to intangible assets and had not applied his mind to the examination and verification of the allowability of depreciation on intangible assets did not mean that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It was not the case of the CIT that depreciation was not allowable on such items ofintangible assets; (ii) An authority exercising revisional power cannot direct the lower authority to complete the assessment in particular manner. UOI vs. Tata Engineering AIR 1998 SC 287 followed; (iii) On merits, approvals/registrations etc amount to “intangible assets” and entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1) (ii).
Challenge in this batch of appeals filed by the revenue under Section 35(L)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”) is to the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone (for short “the Tribunal”), inter alia, holding that the duty of Central Excise on shrimps and shrimp seeds produced and removed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the assessee”), a 100% Export Oriented Unit (for short “EOU”), in the Domestic Tariff Area (for short “DTA”) without the approval of the Development Commissioner, would be payable under Section 3(1) of the Act and not under the proviso appended thereto.
The appellants, manufacturers of motor vehicles, entered into dealership agreements with their dealers. The agreement provided for servicing and warranty including free service. The dealers margin covered pre-delivery inspection and three after sales services. The issue, therefore, was whether such pre-delivery inspection and after- sale-service charges are to be included in the assessable value of the goods for determining the duty liability under the Central Excise Act, 1944 („the Act?).
By majority opinion, the Tribunal found that the assessee cannot claim any credit for the TDS on the income which is not offered for taxation. The Tribunal further found that the benefit for the TDS is to be allowed as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act u/s. 199.
