TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
July 10, 2017
Case Laws in this Newsletter:
Income Tax
Customs
Corporate Laws
Service Tax
Highlights / Catch Notes
-
Income Tax:
Exemption u/s. 10B - Tribunal correctly held that the assessee cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold. Having set up and established the claim of being engaged in the manufacturing activity during a particular period, which stand of the assessee was accepted by the department, the assessee cannot be allowed to shift the stand merely because in the later year the assessee finds that it would be more advantageous to shift the beginning of 10 consecutive years for the exemption under section 10B - HC
-
Income Tax:
Reopening of assessment - unaccounted investment in the purchase of the property - There cannot be an automatic presumption that a purchaser of the property had paid consideration higher than the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed, the moment the stamp valuation authority of the State Government demanded and the parties paid higher stamp duty. - HC
-
Income Tax:
"Mark to Market” loss - AO did not disallow the claim of loss but CIT(A) disallowed the claim of loss - In the absence of any fact with regard to the nature of the said transaction, it would not be possible to accept the contention of the revenue with regard to 'Mark to Market' loss. - Claim allowed - HC
-
Income Tax:
Levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whatever entries were passed in the books were passed in the bona fide manner. No penalty is leviable for violation of deeming provisions
-
Customs:
Valuation of imports - loading of 20% - It would be only natural to assume that the technical know how that has been accrued by way of such payments would go in to each and every product that is imported in to India and thereby all the services that have been paid for above are liable to be added to the value of the products.
-
Customs:
Refund claim - once a certificate from Chartered Accountant, who is also statutory auditor, if filed by the appellant, then there is no need for insisting on production of audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account - refund allowed
-
Corporate Law:
True & Fair view” is not depicted in the Balance Sheet - Generally the decrease in paid up capital can occur in various ways viz buyback of shares, forfeiture of shares, reduction of share capital etc., However the current balance sheet does not have any of these events / information. Considering the fact that different/contradictory amount is shown in different documents - the instant case is not fit case for compounding the alleged offence
-
Service Tax:
Nature of activity of "chit fund business" - cash management / fund management - whether classifiable under the category of "banking and other financial services" - No service tax was payable on Chit Fund activity From June 15, 2007 to June 30, 2012 - SC
Articles
Notifications
Circulars / Instructions / Orders
News
Case Laws:
-
Income Tax
-
2017 (7) TMI 216
Addition of unexplained cash not recorded in the books of account under Section 69A - Held that:- No merit in this Special Leave Petition. HC order confirmed [2017 (3) TMI 880 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] HC has held that, Merely because, at the relevant time amount was not seized and returned, it cannot be said that the subsequently during the course of assessment, the aforesaid amount which was found in cash from the premises of the assessee could not have been added as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. - Decided against assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 215
Reopening of assessment - whether ITAT was justified in holding that AO had the jurisdiction to reassess issues other than issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated, but he was not justified when the reasons for the initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive? - Held that:- Identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in case of Commissioner of Incometax v. Mohmed Juned Dadani [2013 (2) TMI 292 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that Explanation (3), Section 147 of the Act, however, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed as to provide that if the reason on which the assessment is reopened fails, the AO still can proceed to assess some other income which according to him had escaped assessment and which came to his light during the course of the assessment. For assuming jurisdiction to frame an assessment under Section 147 what is essential is a valid reopening of a previously closed assessment. If the very foundation of the reopening is knocked out, any further proceeding in respect to such assessment naturally would not survive.
-
2017 (7) TMI 214
Exemption u/s. 10B - insufficient manufacturing activity set up of the assessee - Held that:- For the assessment year 1996-1997, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80HHC and 80IA of the Income Tax Act which would be available to an industrial undertaking manufacturing or producing an article or thing. Thus in plain terms, case of the assessee was that even during the said period, the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing activity. Faced with such a situation, the assessee took an unusual stand claiming that such deduction was wrongly claimed and wrongly granted. Tribunal correctly held that the assessee cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold. Having set up and established the claim of being engaged in the manufacturing activity during a particular period, which stand of the assessee was accepted by the department, the assessee cannot be allowed to shift the stand merely because in the later year the assessee finds that it would be more advantageous to shift the beginning of 10 consecutive years for the exemption under section 10B of the Act.
-
2017 (7) TMI 213
Reopening of assessment - unaccounted investment in the purchase of the property - reference to the DVO - Payment of higher stamp duty - Held that:- Firstly, there is no presumption in law that whenever the Stamp Duty authority collects duty higher than what would be payable on the declared sale consideration, it would automatically mean that the purchaser had paid a sum in excess of the reflected sale consideration. The statutory presumption flowing from section 50C of the Act is in relation to the capital gain to be assessed in the hands of the seller. This presumption is also rebuttable if the assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation. There cannot be an automatic presumption that a purchaser of the property had paid consideration higher than the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed, the moment the stamp valuation authority of the State Government demanded and the parties paid higher stamp duty. This may be one of the factors which may prompt the Assessing Officer to probe further. This leads us to the second reason viz. this information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for a declared sale consideration of ₹ 60 lakhs and that at the time of registration of the sale deed, he was asked to pay additional stamp duty of ₹ 1,34,256/was very much before the Assessing Officer even during the original assessment as can be seen from the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The same information which was noticed by the Assessing Officer, but which did not prompt him to make any addition or make any other attempt to make addition except for calling of DVO's report, by itself cannot be the ground for reopening of the assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 212
"Mark to Market” loss - Held that:- There is nothing on record even remotely to suggest that the transaction in question was a speculative one. The assessing officer had not disallowed the said claim. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) for the first time that too in an appeal of the assessee has disallowed the amount of ₹ 30,31,633/. There are no facts on record. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed ₹ 30,31,633/on account of Mark to Market loss. It is stated that the said disallowance is confirmed in fact the assessing officer had never disallowed 'Mark to Market' loss of ₹ 30,31,633/. In the absence of any fact with regard to the nature of the said transaction, it would not be possible to accept the contention of the revenue with regard to 'Mark to Market' loss. There is no basis to arrive at such conclusion in the facts of the present case. Disallowance of rent expenditure - Held that:- As observed by the Tribunal that the assessee was running his business in the said premises and the said expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for carrying on his business. The said finding is a finding of fact. No substantial question of law arise
-
2017 (7) TMI 211
Seeking release the seized FDRs and unfreeze the bank accounts - Held that:- By now the assessment proceedings in the hands of father and brother both have been carried out by the Assessing Officer. Assessment orders in case of the petitioner, father and brother have all been passed by the Assessing Officer. We are informed that the Assessing Officer has held that the amount in question does not belong to the petitioner but to the father/brother. We are also informed that such assessment orders are challenged by the respective assessees before the Commissioner and such appeals are pending. In view of such developments, it is not possible in the present petition to give any findings of fact as to the source of the FDs and other related issues. We leave it to the appellate Commissioner to examine the issue on the basis of materials on record. We are sure, if request is made for early disposal of such appeal, the Commissioner would consider the same depending on the work load.
-
2017 (7) TMI 210
Addition u/s 68 - paper identify of the share applicants - Held that:- If before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) the assessee has pointed out that the ITI was not sent on the correct address or there has been some change of address later on, then it was incumbent upon the Ld. CIT (Appeals) to himself got the enquiry done through the Assessing Officer or should have asked the Assessing Officer for the remand report to examine the veracity of the claim of the assessee made before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) or should have asked the assessee to produce creditors. None of such exercise has been done by Ld. CIT (A) Even the confirmations letters which have been given along with the other details have not been examined properly by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) or even as a matter of fact by the Assessing Officer, especially when during the year the assessee has only received the share application money and none of the share applicants were allotted shares in this year and it has also not been properly scrutinized as to how much money has been refunded back in the subsequent years and to whom shares have been allotted and when. All these facts needs to thoroughly scrutinized and examined by both the authorities. Revenue’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (7) TMI 209
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee has received the cash loans - proof of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of donors - Held that:- The assessee having once filed the confirmations in which no defect has been pointed out, the onus on the assessee stands discharged. In response to notice u/s 131(1) of the Act the said parties filed the affidavit, bank account, acknowledgment of filing of income tax returns directly to the Assessing Officer. The finding of the Assessing Officer that the said entities are fake is on the basis of no material on record and purely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In fact on the other hand the assessee has proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness by filing various documents by the customers as mentioned here in above. Even if the creditors do not appear in response to the notice u/s 131, it is not the duty to enforce the said parties by the assessee and make them present before the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer will have to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction during the course of proceedings with regard to the assessee having concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, before he initiates penalty proceedings. See case of Madhushree Gupta [ 2009 (7) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT ]. Thus the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 208
TPA - non including the amount of suo motu transfer pricing adjustment offered by the assessee - Held that:- Once a particular transfer pricing adjustment has been voluntarily made by the assessee, it requires to be taken into consideration in determining the ALP of the international transaction. It can be seen that the TPO took operating profit from this international transaction at ₹ 19.00 lac without including the amount of suo motu transfer pricing adjustment offered by the assessee under this segment at ₹ 10,22,453/-. Set aside the impugned order on this score and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for re-determining the ALP of the extant international transaction by taking Operating profit of the assessee from this segment at ₹ 29,23,205/- (Rs.19,00,752/- + ₹ 10,22,453/-). The other calculation of benchmark profit at 17% made by the TPO will remain unchanged. ALP of the international transaction of ‘Contract manufacturing’ - MAM selection - CUP v/s TNMM - Held that:- The calculation of the ALP made by the TPO under this method is not passing the prescription of rule 10B(1)(a). Sub-clause (i) talks of identifying the price charged for the property transferred. Even the description of property transferred i.e. the drugs sold is not ascertainable in most of the cases. Sub-clause (ii) firstly, requires determining the price charged in comparable uncontrolled situation. Here again, similar position prevails. Not only there are varying prices charged by different manufacturers as against the TPO taking only one price in an ad hoc manner, even the reduction of margin of 39.6% from such retail price for getting the ex-factory price, is not sacrosanct. Apart from that, no adjustment has been carried out as per sub-clause (ii) on account of exports made by the assessee vis-à-vis the comparable prices relating to domestic sales. Thus, it is clear from the above discussion that the exercise done by the TPO in determining the ALP of the international transaction of ‘Contract manufacturing’ under the CUP method does not merit acceptance. TNMM for determining the ALP - Held that:- While dealing with the earlier international transaction of ‘Business support services’, we have noticed that the assessee carried out audit and inspection pertaining to contract manufacturing done by third parties in India for its AE. This prima facie shows that there are certain other third parties in India doing contract manufacturing for the assessee’s AE. The TPO has not taken cognizance of these transactions for ascertaining if they are comparable. As they are also contract manufacturers engaged in manufacturing drugs for the assessee’s AE in India, there may be a possibility of finding comparable uncontrolled transactions in such parties, which skipped the attention of the TPO. either the relevant CUP data of such contract manufacturers is not available or their transactions turn out to be incomparable, then, the AO/TPO should apply the TNMM for determining the ALP of this international transaction. We have found above that all the four companies chosen by the assessee do not qualify to be considered as comparable. The TPO, in a situation warranting the application of the TNMM, should select fresh companies, engaged in contract manufacturing, which are really comparable and are not full-fledged manufacturers. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard in such fresh determination. Reimbursement for the registration of product’ - Held that:- The only amount considered by the TPO is the ‘Registration fees’ paid for the products at ₹ 1,31,32,100/-. As this is a cost incurred by the assessee for and on behalf of its AE and the same was recovered without rendering any service qua the payment of registration fees, in our considered opinion this amount was rightly claimed as ‘Reimbursement of expenses’ on which no mark-up could have been earned. We, therefore, hold that the addition of ₹ 18,72,637/- was wrongly made. The same is directed to be deleted. International transaction of ‘Reimbursement receivable for Wound care services’ - Held that:- The nature of such reimbursement of expenses is not properly coming out from the order of the TPO. The rival parties also could not throw proper light on the exact nature of the amount of ₹ 34.10 lac. Under these circumstances, it cannot be properly ascertained as to whether the amount of ₹ 34.10 lac is a cost incurred by the assessee without rendering any services to its AE or its involvement was there in incurring such expenses. If the assessee’s involvement was there apart from mere incurring, and there is no compensation for it, then, naturally, some mark-up is required and vice versa. In the absence of this vital information, we set aside the impugned order on this score and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for re-doing it afresh.
-
2017 (7) TMI 207
Levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whether Assessing Officer has issued a vague notice for the initiation of the penalty proceedings? - Held that:- We have seen the copy of the notice which shows that irrelevant clauses of the notice were not struck by the Assessing Officer at the time of initiation of proceedings. These types of notices are severely criticized by various courts including case of Manju Nath Cotton Mills [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] which held that penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed if the same are initiated on these type of notices. Issuance of these type of notices would show complete non application of mind of the Assessing Officer which is not permissible. DR made arguments that it is a case of difference of opinion because the Assessing Officer has made the addition, in quantum proceedings u/s 68. While ITAT in quantum proceedings has upheld the addition u/s 69A which provisions are materially different from the provisions of section 68 and hence it is a case of difference opinion. But on this point also penalty is not leviable. The assessee has turnover of ₹ 4.79 crore and has paid salary to the tune of ₹ 2043 lacs in the impugned year and whatever the assessee has also produced a certificate from the national bank certifying that alleged share application money received by the assessee was actually returned to the subscriber. The ld. DR could not controvert these arguments and hence we are fully convinced with the ld. AR that whatever entries were passed in the books were passed in the bona fide manner. No penalty is leviable for violation of deeming provisions. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 206
Disallowance of interest -as per AO loans have been utilized for the purpose of acquisition of capital assets - Held that:- AO aforesaid conclusion is not supported by any evidence on record. We find that while upholding the order of AO, though Ld. CIT(A) has stated that though the cash credit loan account was not used for the purpose of acquisition of capital assets but since as per the ledger, the cash credit funds were utilized for the repayment of funds availed for work in progress, the expenditure was not allowable. CIT(A) though has disallowed the interest but has given a finding that the amount borrowed from cash credit account was not utilized for acquisition of capital assets. No evidence has been brought on record by Revenue to demonstrate that the general purpose loan or term loan which was for take-over of loan from Bank of Maharashtra was utilized for acquisition of capital assets. In such a situation, we are of the view that no disallowance of interest is called for merely on the basis of presumption. We therefore direct the deletion of disallowance of interest made by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 205
Addition on account of cash deposit in bank - Held that:- All entries of cash deposit are duly rotated through cashbook and it is duly reflected. However, it appears that the Ld. CIT (A) has not seems to have consider and examined the details as claimed in cashbook. Therefore, the CIT (A) is not justified in allowing credit of ₹ 10 Lakh on account of rotation of cash out of total cash deposit of ₹ 16,34,750/- . Therefore, this limited issue is requires reexamination by the AO. We set-aside the issue to the file of the AO to examine the additional evidence produced and whether entries are duly appearing in cashbook and books of accounts. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
Customs
-
2017 (7) TMI 220
Valuation of imports - loading of 20% - related party transaction - joint venture - technical know-how - royalty - Held that: - payments made to M/s. Lear Corporation, USA and to M/s. Hanil E. HWA Co. Ltd., Korea by the appellant, had not been disclosed and consequently not analysed, during the initial SVB investigation in 2001. There can then be no doubt that such a vital information of this nature has been suppressed from the investigating SVB. Such suppression cannot be attributed to inadvertence or negligence and has certainly been done for the purpose of avoiding proper enhancement of assessable value and thereby evading discharge of the correct Customs duty to the exchequer. The lower appellate authority is right in coming to the conclusion that It would therefore be absurd and incongruous to state that these payments do not relate to the supply of components under import. It would be only natural to assume that the technical know how that has been accrued by way of such payments would go in to each and every product that is imported in to India and thereby all the services that have been paid for above are liable to be added to the value of the products. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 219
Refund claim - N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dt. 1.3.2002 - time limitation - whether the discharge of customs duty liability on the imported goods by the appellant pursuant to the High Court order, can be treated as payment of duty under protest? - Held that: - the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RBF Rig Corporation Vs CC (Imports) Mumbai [2011 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that once the High Court order was not challenged by Revenue, the same reached finality and the adjudicating authority cannot be permitted to circumvent the order passed by the High Court. The discharge of duty liability in respect of 28 Bills of Entry on the strength of the orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, will necessarily have to be treated as payment of duty under protest and hence limitation of one year for claiming refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 shall not apply in view of second proviso to sub-section (1) thereof. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 218
Refund claim - rejection on the ground that descriptions of the imported goods mentioned in the Bills of Entry, were not exactly the same as reflected in the commercial sales invoices - Held that: - No contrary evidence has been recorded by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to show that the VAT/CST was not paid on the imported goods in the impugned order except observing that VAT/CST amount is not mentioned against each of the imported items cleared/sold as such with the main machines accordingly they failed to fulfil the condition of the Notification. Unjust enrichment - refund claim rejected on the ground that the appellant could not establish that the incidence of the refund amount allowed as refund to them, had borne by them and not been passed on to the customers - Held that: - vide Circular Dated 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008, the Board has clarified that to satisfy the condition of unjust enrichment, certificate from Chartered Accountant would suffice, but later further clarified that the Chartered Accountant should also be the statutory auditor of the claimant company in its subsequent Circular dated 8.7.2010. Further, it is clarified that once a certificate from Chartered Accountant, who is also statutory auditor, if filed by the appellant, then there is no need for insisting on production of audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account. In these circumstances, the observation of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), that the appellant by including the refund amount as expenses in their profit and loss account and hence the burden must have been passed on to their customers is without any corroborative evidence - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 217
Penalty - misdeclaration of imported goods - whether the appellant is eligible for immunity from penalties in case when the main appellant's case was settled before the Settlement Commission? - Held that: - Since on the issue in hand there are conflicting decisions of this Tribunal as discussed above, the dispute needs to be resolved by the Larger Bench - matter referred to Larger Bench.
-
Corporate Laws
-
2017 (7) TMI 223
Oppression and mismanagement - removal from the Directorship - Held that:- The collateral security given by the petitioner to the bank cannot be charged for such losses caused to 1st Respondent company. The acts of omission and commission of R2 and R3 have caused losses to 1st Respondent company which are against the legitimate expectations of the petitioner. The same may not be oppressive in nature, but constitutes mismanagement of 1st Respondent company. Issue No. l partly proved against R2 and R3. Since we have concluded that issue No. l is partly proved against R2 and R3, the petitioner is not liable for the losses that have been suffered by R1 company, due to the acts of omission and commission of R3, and R2 failed to initiate corrective measures. Therefore, it is held that R3 alone shall be liable to pay 1st Respondent company a sum of ₹ 16.48 crores with bank interest being the money overdrawn by him through current A/c No.2233 operated by R3 as sub-account. For the reasons stated above, R3 is hereby removed from the Directorship of the company and the petitioner is appointed as Director-cum-Managing Director of the company who shall perform his duties diligently to run the day to day affairs of the company smoothly along with R2 who is directed to render all assistance and support to the newly appointed Director-cum-Managing Director. Further, 1st Respondent company shall not allow third party to use the goodwill of the company for the benefit of third party. The petitioner is also forbidden to compete with 1st Respondent company in any manner, so that the company could grow in future. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
-
2017 (7) TMI 222
Compounding the offence under Section 211(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 - "True & Fair view” is not depicted in the Balance Sheet - Held that:- Upon scrutiny of the Balance Sheets for both the financial years, there is no mention about the reduction of share capital from approx. ₹ 106.41 Crores to approx. ₹ 84.41 Crores (approx.. ₹ 22.00 crores is the capital reduction). Balance sheet of a Company is an important / basic Financial Statement used by stakeholders for various purposes. Generally, Audited Balance Sheet will depict correct /factual amount under various heads and especially there cannot be any factual error with reference to Authorised, Issued and Subscribed Capital of any Company. Therefore, the Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2009 is not in accordance with Section 211(1) of Companies Act 1956 in as much as “True & Fair view” is not depicted in the Balance Sheet, thereby resulting in disclosing false particulars of issued capital. Further, the applicants have also failed to exercise / exhibit due regard and failed to take reasonable steps while preparing the Balance Sheet for the year 2008-09. Therefore, the applicants submission that by inadvertent, default has not caused any prejudice to Members (or) Creditors, not to affect public interest, no harm is caused to public interest etc. does not hold good in the instant facts of the case as discussed supra. Generally the decrease in paid up capital can occur in various ways viz buyback of shares, forfeiture of shares, reduction of share capital etc., However the current balance sheet does not have any of these events / information. Considering the fact that different/contradictory amount is shown in different documents produced before this Bench as discussed above, we are of considered view that the instant case is not fit case for compounding the alleged offence as prayed for and liable to be dismissed.
-
2017 (7) TMI 221
Approval of the scheme of arrangement by way of amalgamation - Held that:- Since the provisions relating to compromises, arrangements and amalgamation as contemplated under Sections 230-232 had been notified w.e.f. 15.12.2016 wherein the power to consider such schemes have now been vested with the National Company Law Tribunal, the Company Petitions herein have also been transferred from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi due to Notification of the provisions of Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 on and from 15.12.2016, we grant two weeks time from the date of this order for the Petitioners to comply in terms of proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 230/ proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 232 failing which the Petition shall stand rejected.
-
Service Tax
-
2017 (7) TMI 224
Nature of activity of chit fund business - cash management / fund management - whether classifiable under the category of banking and other financial services - admittedly upto June 14, 2007, chit fund business was not exigible to service tax. Likewise, from July 01, 2012 to June 14, 2015, no service tax was payable. Present dispute concerns the intervening period from June 15, 2007 to June 30, 2012 - It has been brought specifically within the definition of service by the aforesaid amendment which takes effect from June 15, 2015. Therefore, there is no dispute that w.e.f. June 15, 2015, service tax is payable on chit fund. Held that:- whenever a person is having idle cash or unrealised dues and wants the same to be utilised in a proper and fruitful manner, managing the said idle cash would amount to cash management. These are the services generally offered by the banking institutions to their clients. - Cash management, thus, deals with optimisation of cash as an asset and for this purpose various decisions are to be taken for proper management thereof. The cash management schemes are, thus, built around two goals: (a) to provide cash needed to meet the obligations and (b) to minimise the idle cash held by the business. When we understand the aforesaid concept of cash management, the answer we are seeking becomes obvious. Insofar as activity of chit fund is concerned, it does not amount to cash management. Once we have held that chit fund business is not cash management or a business of managing cash, no further discussion on this issue is even required. However, dehors the issue of cash management, we are of the view that activity of managing chit fund does not amount to management of any type of fund. Even as per the definition from dictionary relied upon by the Revenue, fund is an aggregation or deposit of resources from which supplies are or may be drawn for carrying on any work, or for maintaining existence. For our reasons given above, we affirm the conclusion in the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court [2008 (7) TMI 227 - HIGH COURT ANDHRA PRADESH]. We also hold that Kerala High Court [2013 (6) TMI 53 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has taken erroneous view and its judgment stands overruled. As a result, these appeals are dismissed. No service tax was payable on Chit Fund activity From June 15, 2007 to June 30, 2012 - Decided in favor of assessee.
|
