Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-I on 3 February, 2016

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 16 March, 2016

"Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board, thus, has powers, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a),however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act is given the right to forgo the advantage when required to wield it in the manner it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law or in other permissible manners as laid down in section 119. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and in public interest. It is a beneficial power given to the Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Hard cases which can be properly categorised as belonging to a class, can thus be given the benefit of relaxation of law by issuing circulars binding on the taxing authorities.""
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd vs Service Tax-I, Kolkata on 2 January, 2020

Mahindra and Mahindra v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II (Final Order No. A/85817/2018 dated 21.03.2018)  Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST, Mumbai Central in Final Order No. 86095-86096/2018 dated 20.04.2018  Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd [2014 TIOL-1188-CESTAT-MUM] On the second issue pertaining to demand of service tax of Rs.63,207/- on RCM for foreign remittances, the learned Chartered Accountant did not press on the ground taken in appeal memo in this regard considering the amount involved. He however contested the imposition of general penalty under Section 77 as legally not sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 80 of the Act.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai vs M/S. J.M. Financial Consultants Pvt Ltd on 2 June, 2016

5. We find that in the present case the show cause notice was issued on 10/4/2006 invoking extended period. At the time of issuance of show cause notice, unamended provisions of Section 73(a) existed prior to 10/9/2000 was not existing, therefore unamended Section 73(a) is not invokable in the present case. If this is so then the appeal of the Revenue which solely on the basis of this ground does not survive. As per amended provision of Section 73, extended period can be invoked only when there is suppression of facts. In the present case even in the Revenues appeal there is no charge of suppression of facts and infact respondent informed the department about their service activity of merger and acquisition therefore extended period was not invokable, the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly dropped the demand on limitation. As regard the merit of the case, we find that services undisputedly are of financing, merger and acquisition, these services were specifically brought in the definition of banking and financial services w.e.f. 16/7/2001 therefore during the period 1999-2000 these services were not taxable in other heads. This issue has been already settled in the case of M/s. Kotak Mahindra Capital Co Ltd (supra). Therefore even on merit also services of the respondent was not taxable at the material time. As per our above discussion and settled legal position on both issues, Revenues appeal does not survive. The impugned order is upheld. Revenues appeal is dismissed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1