Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 126 (2.37 seconds)
Documents citing Canbank Financial Services Ltd vs The Custodian & Others on 3 September, 2004

G M R Hyderabad Air Cargo And Logistics ... vs Rangareddy - G S T on 29 April, 2025

He has also distinguished the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Canbank Financial Services Ltd Vs Custodian & Ors (supra) stating that in that case, the Canbank Mutual Fund has only created ownership in the shares, which was vested in respondents 2. To that extent, there was no transfer of ownership at the stage of allotment. However, once the ownership is vested in the allottee, any further transaction therein has to be considered as transaction involving transfer of ownership. He observed that in the instant case, ownership created by allotment had been taken possession of by the assessee as evidenced by the payments made to the person who created such ownership and thereafter, redeemed such ownership and the rights associated with the units on receipt of consideration. Thus, the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court would not apply. He ultimately held that the intention of Rule 6(1) of CCR is to ensure that credit of service tax paid on input services should not be allowed to a provider of output services who utilized such services either exclusively or commonly for providing taxable services and non-taxable service activity.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central ... vs Gmr Airport Developers Limited on 29 April, 2025

He has also distinguished the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Canbank Financial Services Ltd Vs Custodian & Ors (supra) stating that in that case, the Canbank Mutual Fund has only created ownership in the shares, which was vested in respondents 2. To that extent, there was no transfer of ownership at the stage of allotment. However, once the ownership is vested in the allottee, any further transaction therein has to be considered as transaction involving transfer of ownership. He observed that in the instant case, ownership created by allotment had been taken possession of by the assessee as evidenced by the payments made to the person who created such ownership and thereafter, redeemed such ownership and the rights associated with the units on receipt of consideration. Thus, the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court would not apply. He ultimately held that the intention of Rule 6(1) of CCR is to ensure that credit of service tax paid on input services should not be allowed to a provider of output services who utilized such services either exclusively or commonly for providing taxable services and non-taxable service activity.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gmr Airport Developers Limited vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 April, 2025

He has also distinguished the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Canbank Financial Services Ltd Vs Custodian & Ors (supra) stating that in that case, the Canbank Mutual Fund has only created ownership in the shares, which was vested in respondents 2. To that extent, there was no transfer of ownership at the stage of allotment. However, once the ownership is vested in the allottee, any further transaction therein has to be considered as transaction involving transfer of ownership. He observed that in the instant case, ownership created by allotment had been taken possession of by the assessee as evidenced by the payments made to the person who created such ownership and thereafter, redeemed such ownership and the rights associated with the units on receipt of consideration. Thus, the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court would not apply. He ultimately held that the intention of Rule 6(1) of CCR is to ensure that credit of service tax paid on input services should not be allowed to a provider of output services who utilized such services either exclusively or commonly for providing taxable services and non-taxable service activity.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna Gopal Kakani vs Bank Of Baroda on 30 September, 2008

10. The learned counsel has, however, placed reliance on Canbank Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Custodian & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 355 to contend that a Banker holding a customers money would do so in a fiduciary capacity and as such the matter would fall within section 88 and ipso facto make Section 10 of the Act applicable. We, however, see from a perusal of this judgment that it related to a situation where funds in the account of one Hiten Dalal were utilized by two stock-brokers to purchase units in a Mutual Fund under instructions of Hiten Dalal. The units were handed over to Hilen Dalal and the interest accruing thereon was handed over to him. It was in this situation that the Court held that a fiduciary relationship was created with the appellant financial service and Dalal. Clearly, this is not the case herein. Section 10 of the Act is, therefore, not relevant to the circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 19 - H S Bedi - Full Document

Peeyush Aggarwal vs Sanjeev Bhavnani on 4 July, 2013

32. As far as reliance by the counsel for the plaintiff on Canbank supra is concerned, the Court found that case to be concerned by Section 88 of the Trusts Act and held the list of persons viz. trustee, executor, partner, agent, director of a company, legal advisor to be not exhaustive and held the shares in that case to have been acquired as an agent; the facts of that case also found the „benami owner‟ to be not claiming any right, title or interest therein.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 10 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Canara Bank vs Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar on 28 November, 2006

20. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff also cited the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Canbank Financial Services Ltd., v. The Custodian reported in 2004 (4) CTC 755 to the effect that the property in the goods passes from the owner to the other by mere delivery of possession as per Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act. This judgment is cited out of context as Fixed Deposit is covered under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act; such a transfer would not amount to transfer of moveable property under the Sale of Goods Act.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Babita Pal And Others vs Jagdish Bansal on 5 December, 2012

"48. It may be noted at this juncture that in the Canbank Financial Services Ltd. case (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with the Benami Transactions Act emphasized that benami transactions in India were generally recognized by the FAO(OS) No.569/2012 Page 10 of 14 Courts unless such transactions (a) violated the provisions of any law; or (b) defeated the rights of innocent transferees for value; or (c) when the object of the benami transaction was to defraud creditors; or (d) when it was against public policy. The Supreme Court held that benami transactions as such had not been declared to be invalid in law by any statute including the Benami Transactions Act and as a matter of fact the Benami Transactions Act was required to be strictly construed. In paragraph 66, it was stated:-
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - V Sanghi - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Sai Service Station Ltd on 13 February, 2014

55. Emphatic is the observation of the Supreme Court in Canbank Financial Services Ltd. v. Custodian7, that right, title, and interest in a movable property can pass by delivery of possession and upon paying of the considerations given the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. "Passing up of a title in favour of the transferee would not be illegal unless it is forbidden by law. For the said purpose, the transaction must attract the wrath of Section 23 of the Contract Act" and not otherwise.
Kerala High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 1 - A Dominic - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next