TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not a salary but directors remuneration. Therefore, the same is liable to service tax in the hands of the appellant - though in the Income tax return the remuneration was declared as salary income but it is a self declaration. However, whether such income is a salary income or otherwise the same can be established on the basis of employment conditions for employment of directors as company s employees. In the entire proceedings the appellant have not produced the appointment order of the directors as employees containing the terms and conditions of the employment. The matter needs to be reconsidered taking into account not only the position of income tax but also on the basis of terms and conditions of the employment - appeal allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kata as well as Bombay benches of the Hon ble Tribunal. The case law relied upon by the commissioner has also been considered in such judgments rendered by this tribunal and such case law has also held to be inapplicable and distinguishable. He submits that from the said judgments the position emerges in the appellant favour clearly indicates that directors are employees of the company and remuneration (inclusive of bonus and allowances) paid to the directors is salary and hence not chargeable to service tax. He placed reliance on the following judgment: Maithan Alloys Ltd V/s. CCE ST, Balpur 2020 (23) GSTL 228 (Tri.- Kolkata) Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd V/s. CCE ST, Aurangabad- 2019 (24) GSTL 207 (Tri.- Mumbai) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led appellant reply rejoined to the submission made by the Authorized Representative which is taken on record. 3. On the other hand Shri T.G Rathod, Learned Additional Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He also filed a detailed written submission dated 27.01.2021 and also placed reliance on the following judgments: Sudip Rungta V/s DCIT [ITAT Appeal No.2370/Kol/2017] CIT Vs B.Ghosal (125 ITR 444) 3.1 Learned Authorized representative, post hearing submitted a letter dated 08.02.2021 wherein the status of Hon ble Supreme Court cases on the same issue which are pending is also given. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
