Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Consideration out of surrender of tenancy right on account of immovable property cannot be considered as service as per definition under Section 65-B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and no service tax is payable.”
“Mere entries in income tax returns or Form 26AS cannot, by themselves, establish liability under the Finance Act, 1994, unless corroborated by evidence demonstrating rendition of taxable service.”
A settlement of dispute is clearly not an agreement to tolerate any act or situation. It is beyond the scope of Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 and thus not a ‘declared service’.
“SKY Lark Education Welfare Society is imparting education to students of Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, enrolled under the distant learning programme, as per its curriculum and it is duly recognized under the laws of the Uttar Pradesh Government/UGC.”
For getting the films exhibited in their theatre, the owner of the said Multiplexes/theatres enter into agreements with the film distributors/producers. The purpose of the agreement and the intention of the parties is for screening of the film in the theatre, which cannot be treated as “Renting of Immovable Property Service”.
Services provided by an advocate or a Partnership firm of advocates providing legal services to any person other than a business entity and a business entity with a turnover up to rupees ten lakhs in the preceding financial year are exempted from the levy of service tax.
The services were not received by the appellant regarding which invoices have been issued to the appellant’s other two addresses, other than the address for which service tax registration has been taken, is contrary to the contention stated by Revenue in the show cause notice. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal stated that for a place to fall within the ambit of a public place, the element of right of access of public was a necessary concomitant.
“With coming into force of interest provisions, the revenue neutrality concept has undergone a change, so as to consider duty neutrality different from revenue (Duty+interest) neutrality. Latter at time may not exist, even if former is present.”
Supreme Court settled the issue of whether “body corporate” is excluded from the definition of “consulting engineer” under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 prior to the amendment in 2005.
Sikkim High Court: A Division Bench of Vijai Kumar Bist, CJ and Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. dismissed a writ petition filed against the
Bombay High Court: S.C. Dharamadhikari and M.S. Karnik, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed against the order passed by Central Excise and Service Tax