 |
|
2020-TIOL-NEWS-252| October 24, 2020
|
|
|
Dear Member,
Sending following links. Warm Regards,
TIOL Content Team
TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED.
For assistance please call us at + 91 850 600 0282 or email us at helpdesk@tiol.in. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
INCOME TAX |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-TIOL-1776-HC-KAR-IT CIT Vs TTK Healthcare Tpa Pvt Ltd
Revenue is in appeal against the Tribunal order holding that provisions of Section 194J of the Act has to be applied only to the payments which assume the nature of fee for professional services and not on the entire composite payments, when the bill contains charges for various services rendered by the hospital, as such payment or for services rendered as a whole. Relying on the High Court decision in the case of I.T.A.No.323/2013, the HC rules partly in favour of the Revenue.
- Revenue's appeal partly allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-1775-HC-KAR-IT
Pr.CIT Vs Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd
Revenue is in appeal against the Tribunal order setting aside the order passed by the AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.17.1 crore and Rs.1.1 crore was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relying on the HC decision in the case of CIT VS. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS 2015-TIOL-3076-HC-KAR-IT , the HC rules against the Revenue.
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-1774-HC-MAD-IT
CIT Vs Indira Industries
Revenue is in appeal against the Tribunal order quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Revenue, holding that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment during the original assessment. As no Substantial Questions of Law is arising for consideration in appeal, the HC rules against the Revenue.
- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2020-TIOL-1272-ITAT-DEL
Romi Lal Nanda Vs ITO
Whether AO is justified in making addition on the basis of a cancelled money receipt found during the course of search, without any corroborative material to his satisfaction - NO: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT
2020-TIOL-1271-ITAT-DEL
GE Capital Services India Vs ACIT
Whether full and true disclosure by taxpayer makes him safe from levy of penalty - YES: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT
2020-TIOL-1270-ITAT-MAD
St Francis Educational Trust Vs ITO
Whether a charitable trust is required to prove that there is no diversion of funds as per Sec 13(1), in order to obtain benefit of exemption of Sec 11 & 12 - YES: ITAT
- Case remanded: CHENNAI ITAT
2020-TIOL-1269-ITAT-PUNE
Renaissance Infraprojects Vs DCIT
Whether making payment through banking channels is sufficient to establish the genuineness of a particular transaction - NO: ITAT
- Case remanded: PUNE ITAT
2020-TIOL-1268-ITAT-JAIPUR
Rampyari Vs ITO
Whether notice u/s 148 issued to a deceased person is not legally valid - YES: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT
2020-TIOL-1267-ITAT-JAIPUR
Seth Ramjidas Modi Vidhya Niketan Society Vs CIT
Whether Department can withdraw exemption granted u/s 10(23C) without proving that the institution was not existing for solely for education and that such institution was found engaged for the purposes of profit - NO: ITAT
Whether when law states that donation received towards the corpus is not required to be invested in the specified securities, then CIT(Exemption) cannot withdraw exemption u/s 10(23C) on such ground - YES: ITAT
- Assessee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDIRECT TAX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SERVICE TAX
2020-TIOL-1544-CESTAT-DEL
United News of India Vs CCE
ST - Service tax demand on the amount paid to M/s. Reuters Ltd., UK Reuters UK and M/s. EPA, Germany EPA Germany under OIDAR service has been confirmed on the ground that exemption provided by Ad-hoc Exemption order dated September 6, 2010 and the Notification dated February 27, 2010 is applicable to the Appellant under section 66 of the Finance Act as a service provider only but the Appellant is a service recipient and section 66A of the Finance Act is applicable to a service recipient.
Held: It needs to be noted that under the deeming fiction created under section 66A of the Finance Act, the service recipient, being the person liable to pay tax under reverse charge, is deemed to be a service provider and, accordingly, the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act apply - In such a case, the Ad-hoc Exemption Order and the Notification will be applicable to the Appellant, even if the demand is in respect of imported services, as the Appellant is deemed to be a service provider under section 66A of the Finance Act: CESTAT [para 11]
ST - Whether the services provided by stringers qualify as BSS.
Held: The service received from the stringers is not categorized in any of the activities mentioned in the inclusion part of the definition of BSS under section 65 (104c) of the Act - Service tax, therefore, could not have been levied under BSS - The finding recorded in the impugned order that every service related to business or commerce is classifiable as BSS is not correct - Thus, the demand of service tax under the category of BSS cannot be sustained: CESTAT [para 17]
ST - Demand of service tax on the amount received from the client for displaying their advertisement on the website of the Appellant under the category SSTA [ sale of space or time for advertisement service ] - The contention of the Appellant is that the Department has not considered the amount of Rs.2,61,611/- paid by the Appellant for the financial year 2009-10 towards the service tax, while confirming the demand of Rs.2,78,658/-.
Held: This is an issue which needs to be examined afresh by the Commissioner on the basis of the documents on record and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant: CESTAT [para 19]
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2020-TIOL-1549-CESTAT-MUM
Technocraft Industries India Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The present appeal was filed by the assessee to challenge denial of CENVAT credit in respect of several input services, namely - a) Air Travel Services, b) Car Insurance services, c) Construction Services, d) Courier Services, e) Dismantling of Old Crane & Power Press Services, f) Estate Consultancy Services, g) Fixing of Roofing Cladding Sheet Services, h) Flooring of Factory Services, i) Hyundai Car Insurance Services, j) Insurance of Vehicle Services, k) Internet Telephone Services, l) Maintenance& Repair Services, m) Management Consultancy Services, n) Share Transfer Services, o) Stock Exchange Services, p) Telephone Services, q) Testing & Analysis Services, r) Xerox & Copier Services, s) Services provided by bank, t) Excess service tax credit availed on works contract service, u) Ocean Freight - The credit had been denied to the assessee in respect of all these services, for a variety of reasons.
Held - The period of dispute involved in the present case is from April 2009 to March 2015 - The case of the assessee falls under both pre as well as post amended definition of input service - Under the pre-amended definition of input service (effective up to 31.03.2011), the scope and ambit of input service was very broad and comprehensive inasmuch as the phrase "activities relating to business" was specifically finding place in the inclusive part of such definition - The effect of such expression is that any services availed by a service provider for accomplishing the purpose of its business, should be considered as input service - The scope of input service was also widespread under the amended definition of input service (w.e.f. 01.04.2011) inasmuch as the expression "any service used by a provider of output service for providing an output service" was incorporated in such definition clause - Further, the inclusive part of definition has also widened the scope and ambit, meaning thereby that all most all the services used by a service provider were recognized as input service for the purpose of availment of Cenvat benefit - However, certain excluded category of services were provided in the definition clause, which would not be considered as input service in the case of a service provider - Thus, for ascertaining eligibility of cenvat benefit on the disputed services, proper examination of the contract, documents, invoices are required - Since, the disputed case to case issues cannot be effectively examined at this stage, the matter should be remanded to the original authority for a proper fact finding, whether the disputed goods should be considered as input service for the purpose of availment of the CENVAT benefit: CESTAT
- Case remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT
2020-TIOL-1545-CESTAT-DEL
Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - Availment of CENVAT credit has been denied to assessee for the reason that the additional duty of customs paid @ 2% was not the duty of excise as specified in the Excise Tariff Act and so CENVAT credit of the additional duty of customs paid under the Customs Notification dated March 17, 2012 have been wrongly availed - appeal filed by assessee Hindustan Zinc Ltd. against order of Commissioner denying the credit and imposing penalty and interest - appeal is also filed by Revenue against order of Commissioner(A) allowing the impugned credit to the assessee M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. - as issue involved in both the appeals are identical, they are decided by a common order.
- Assessee appeal allowed/Revenue appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT
CUSTOMS
2020-TIOL-1546-CESTAT-MUM
VK Impex Vs CC
Cus - Appellant had imported Cut Orchid Flowers (Dendrobium Hybrid) of various varieties and colour mainly from Thailand - They filed nineteen Kutcha Bill of Entries for the clearance of the same - Though the Kacha Bill of Entries should have been filed as prior Bill of Entry in EDI system, much before the arrival of the consignments, it is evident that in all the cases the Kacha Bill of Entries were filed only after the arrival of the consignment - In all the cases the Kacha Bill of Entry was filed by assessee, in the night after the arrival of goods (approximately at about 0200 Hrs) and these goods being perishable in nature were allowed clearance by 0500 Hrs on the same day after payment of the duty as determined by the department - Assessee submits that he was left with no option but to pay the enhanced duty as determined by the department, otherwise those consignments would have not been cleared - Subsequent to the clearance of goods on payment of duty as determined by Customs they had filed the appeal to the Commissioner (A) - The Commissioner (A) has remanded the matter back to the original authority to pass a fresh order following the principles of natural justice - Their grievance is against the observations made by the Commissioner (A) where he has decided the issue himself upholding the assessment orders enhancing the duty - By doing so, he has seriously constrained the original authority from examining the issue afresh - Assessee had avoided the procedure as prescribed by not filing the prior bill of entry and getting it appraised beforehand as prescribed - The grievance of assessee against the suo moto enhancement of duty by Customs would not have been there if they had filed the Kacha Bill of Entry as Prior Bill of Entry as prescribed and had got it system appraised - It is also not very clear why Customs had allowed filing of these Kacha Bill of Entry in manner contrary to that prescribed by the Public Notice - Both the sides were not in position to explain in this regard during the hearing - When original authority has not assigned any reasons for enhancing the value, then how can appellate authority supplement the same through his order - On one hand he remands the matter on the ground of natural justice, on the other hand he justifies the enhancement of the value as per CVR, 2007 - Therefore, para 10 needs to be obliterated from the impugned order - In remand proceedings, original authority should adjudicate the matter without any reference to this para of impugned order: CESTAT
- Appeals disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED.
TIOL HOUSE, 490, Udyog Vihar, Phase - V,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001, INDIA
Board :
+91 124-6427300
Fax: + 91 124-6427310
Web: https://taxindiaonline.com
Email: updates@tiol.in
__________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY/PROPRIETARY NOTE.
The Document accompanying this electronic transmission contains information from TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED., which is confidential, proprietary or copyrighted and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This prohibition includes, without limitation, displaying this transmission or any portion thereof, on any public bulletin board. If you are not the intended recipient of this document, please return this document to TIOL PRIVATE LIMITED. immediately |
|
|
|
