Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2008 2008 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 481 to 500 of 576 Records

• 2008 (6) TMI 96
  

  Transportation of limestone in unpacked condition within mining area - Relying on decision of tribunal in similar case, claim of the appellants is that none of these activities would merit classification as “Cargo Handling Service” inasmuch as there is no movement of what is called “cargo” from one place to another place as understood in common parlance – held that Circular No. 232/2/2006-Cx.4 relied upon by revenue is contradictory to decision of tribunal – hence stay is granted

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 95
  

  Franchiser of NIIT teaching computer courses - when they came to know that the tax is payable, they discharged the duty liability along with the interest - Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that there is no justification for imposition of any penalty as there is no suppression of facts – held that if Revenue has relied on the case relating to Central Excise while appealing against the impugned order, then Commissioner cannot be challenged for relying on the same

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 94
  

  Applicants are engaged in arranging finance/loans for their customers from banks and financial institutions and in return receive commissions from the banks for promoting the loans and finance scheme - held that the assessee is providing Business Auxiliary Service to the banks for consideration, therefore, is liable to pay Service tax as provider of Business Auxiliary Service. In view of this, we find it is not a fit case for waiver of amount of Service tax.

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 93
  

  Manufacturer of liquor - whether bottling of liquor or mainly packaging so as to attract the service tax – the case relying on which demand was confirmed, High Court has referred the issue to Larger Bench – in view of that decision and decision in case of M/s. Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, stay is granted

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 92
  

  As per the Section 65(23), the cargo handling service means loading/unloading, packing/unpacking of cargo and includes cargo handling service provided for freight in special container or for non-containerized freight – in instant case applicants are rendering the service which include all work assignments relating to packing of cement into bags and loading of these bags into wagons etc. - In view of the above agreement, applicants are providing cargo handling service - stay not granted

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 91
  

  ‘Consulting Engineer’ service - The appellant is the recipient of the service. According to the appellant, the transfer of know-how is not taxable - On ‘technical assistance’ part, for payment of fees since 16-8-2002, as a recipient of service, it has already discharged the tax liability for services provided in India - As regards payment of royalty, no service tax is payable - prima facie case is made out in favour of the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 90
  

  Application for restoration of the appeal dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order - submission that the applicant moved Writ Petition before the HC - High Court directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs within a period of one month - since Tribunal dismissed the appeal prior to the passing of the order of HC, there is no merit in impugned application, hence dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 89
  

  Applications for condonation of delay of 1460 days in filing the appeals - applicant submits that the applicant deposited the tax according to the Adjudication order, thereafter, the applicant found new facts (i.e. agreement between the parties) which was not placed before the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that in view of the agreement, demand of tax is not sustainable - delay in filing the appeals as the applicant found new facts, cannot be a sufficient reason – application rejected

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 88
  

  Provisional assessment - Tribunal was not justified in law in entertaining the assessee’s appeal against charging of interest u/s 139(8) & 215 in the order passed u/s 154, when the assessee had not challenged the enhancement of income – admittedly assessee did not exercise his right u/s 155(4) – hence assessee’s appeals were not maintainable as the same were filed only against the levy of interest payable u/s 215 pursuant to the orders passed u/s 154/155

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 87
  

  Contract for providing the different services – contract for extracting coal from the mines – contract for lifting coal from the ground and put the same into trucks – contract for loading finished coal into Railway Wagons/Truck - in view of the different kinds of contracts having been dealt with together under the impugned order and all activities having been charged to tax as Cargo Handling Services, the matter requires to be remanded to the original authority for redetermination

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 86
  

  Notification no. 33/99 giving area based exemption if expansion of installed capacity take place before the notified date – what was date of substantial expansion - Director of Industries at the material time, was also a Nominee Director of Respondent Company - there was a conflict of interest in the two roles he played - Held that a fresh report is required to be called for from the Department of Industries - matter should be examined by a person who has no interest in the Respondent Company

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 85
  

  Duty paid by the job worker on repair charges – capital goods not received back in premises of principal manufacturer-respondent -- principal manufacturer taking credit of duty paid by his job-worker on capital goods (Dies) mere on basis of invoices is correct – credit is admissible – larger period not invokable for raising demand

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 84
  

  Case of the department is that the appellants who are purchasers of glycerine imported duty free from M/s. Shreeji Cosmetics Industries had conspired with the importer for import of raw materials under advance licence and sold thereafter in local market (without utilization in the manufacture of export product – no material produced by revenue to prove conspiracy or involvement of the appellants - penalty imposed on the appellants cannot be sustained and requires to be set aside

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 83
  

  Demand confirmed by treating the appellants as provider of tour operator service - Case of the assessee was that they are not having tourist permit- In view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case Secy. Federn. Of Bus-Operators Assn. of T.N. vs. UOI and Tribunal as the appellants are not having tourist permit, they are not liable to service tax as provider of tour operator. Impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed.

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 82
  

  Case of the appellant is that the appellant being proprietary firm is not covered by the definition of business auxiliary service as the appellants are not a commercial concern, therefore, are not liable to pay Service Tax - issue is already settled in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal in CCE Vs. R.S. Financial Services – no valid reason to hold that, a sole-proprietary concern was not a commercial proprietary concern – assessee’s contention is not acceptable – hence appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 81
  

  Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order, whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected. The appellant filed a refund claim in respect of the service tax paid as of Goods Transport Operators Service on the ground that appellant are not liable to pay the service tax - issue is covered by the following decision of the Tribunal in favour of revenue J.K. Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore & Poddar Pigments Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur – hence present appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 80
  

  Respondents are owner of Dharamkanta and they are undertaking the weighment of the goods - we find the Business Auxiliary Service means any service in relation to promotion/marketing/sale of goods, produced or provided by or belonging to clients. As respondents are not concerned with the sale or marketing of the goods, therefore, can not be said to be provider incidental or auxiliary service to any activity such as promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced – demand was rightly set aside

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 79
  

  Business Auxiliary Service – assessee arranging loan from bank - commission received from bank - Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded on totally an erroneous footing that, a bank cannot avail of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ as a client – agreement of assessee with bank make clear that assessee had provide service in relation to promotion/marketing of the ‘Banking and Financial Services’ provided by the banks - impugned order is set aside - appeal is disposed of by way of remand

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 78
  

  Demand confirmed on the ground that reimbursable charges incurred by the appellants for traveling allowances to consulting engineers are required to be included in the fees for services so paid by them - issue is settled by Tribunal in various cases in favour of assessee - moreover as per instruction no. F.No.B..43/5/97-TRU, expenses incurred on account of reimbursable expenses shall not form part of the value of the taxable services – appeal of assessee is allowed

  ---

• 2008 (6) TMI 77
  

  Import of machinery – agreement entered into by the assessee with foreign manufacturer made provision for escalation of the cost – addition amount was paid in accordance with that clause – such additional amount was part of actual cost of the assessee in the relevant A.Y. - For the purposes of section 32A, the actual cost of the assessee has to be computed in each A.Y. – hence assessee was entitled to investment allowance on such cost – sections 32A & 43(1) should be interpreted liberally

  ---

1 ....212223242526272829