Bombay High Court held that that since revenue authorities have not registered their claim/attachment order with CERSAI, they cannot claim priority over dues of the Government.
Bombay High Court held that since the Assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment in India, income earned by it as business profit would not be taxable in India by virtue of the provisions of Article 7 of the India-Malaysia DTAA.
Delhi High Court held that subsidy received from Government of Goa for establishing an industrial unit in a backward area is capital receipt. Further, as subsidy was not intended to meet part of cost of assets, no adjustment against cost of asset could be ordered.
CESTAT Chennai held that as Chapter Heading 3302 covers both natural and/or synthetic mixtures of odoriferous substances, ‘tomato dry flavour’ is correctly classifiable under CTH 3302 10 10 instead of 2106 90 60.
ITAT Chennai held that in case of banking companies were shares & securities are held as stock in trade, dividend income is considered as business income, and consequently, provisions of Sec.14A of the Act, cannot be applied.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services related to construction of roads etc. the Government authorities/ agencies are covered under Mega Exemption of Service Tax notification no. 25/2012-ST and hence demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that the services provided to fulfil warranty obligation would be eligible as input services being a service in relation to manufacture. Further, also the warranty charges were included in the assessable value of goods sold to the customers.
CESTAT Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Here, it was merely suppression of facts but intent to evade payment of service tax was absent.
CESTAT Chennai held that as the demand was raised on the basis of the books of accounts which was not hidden from the department, there was no wilful suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade tax and hence invocation of extended period not justified.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere use of the word “commission” in the clause dealing with terms of payment would not mean that “commission” was paid by the seller. The goods were sold on principal to principal basis and payment to buyer was expenses incurred by overseas buyer and not commission. Hence, service tax not payable.
