Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.86 seconds)
Documents citing Malda Bsnl Combined Contractors' ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 March, 2009

M/S. Enviro Chemicals vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2011

620) and BSNL And Another v. Union of India & Others ((2006) 145 STC 91) really dealt with the question as to whether intangibles could be goods and the said principle may not really have a bearing on the issue to be decided by us. Learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the matter should be ST.REV.NOS.30 & 69/2004 33 concluded with reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Xerox Modicorp Ltd. v. State of Karnataka ((2005) 142 STC 209).
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 8 - K Joseph - Full Document

Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited vs The Assistant Commissionr Of Income on 17 August, 2010

In fact, this court after referring to judgment of the Supreme Court in BSNL & ANOTHER V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS reported in (2006) 145 STC 91 upheld the assessee's contention holding that there is no sale involved in Sim Cards or I.T.A. 1742/09 & conn. 6 Recharge coupons attracting sales tax and the transactions are for rendering mobile services because only through Sim Cards the customer can avail the mobile services from the assessee and Recharge coupons are nothing but air time charges paid by customers in advance for availing mobile services from the assessee. In other words, the finding of this court was that there is no intrinsic value for neither the Sim Cards nor the Recharge coupons and the entire collections are only for rendering mobile services by the assesee. However, what has happened is that when the assessee took over the business of the earlier operator, assessee entered into another set of distribution agreement wherein the distributors were given freedom to charge any amount for Sim Cards and Recharge coupons at below maximum retail price (MRP). In other words, if distributors so choose, they are permitted to pass on part of the discount or commission received by them to retailers or customers. But for this, the terms of the distribution agreement as seen from records remain unaltered even after assessee succeeded to the business of the previous company. Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as well as before the Assessing Officer, the assessee I.T.A. 1742/09 & conn. 7 canvassed the position that under prepaid scheme assessee is selling the products namely, Sim Cards and Recharge coupons etc. at a discounted price to the distributors and besides the discount given at the time of sale against advance payment, assessee is neither paying any commission or charges, nor crediting any amount in the account of the distributors.
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Vodafone East Limited (Formerly ... vs Acit, Cir-7, Kolkata, Kolkata on 15 December, 2017

The real test to be considered is whether it is possible to say that it is the assessee who has used the equipment and has paid the roaming charges to the other service provider with whom it has entered into a national roaming agreement. We hold that it is not possible to say so because if at all anyone can be said to have used the equipment it can only be the subscriber of the assessee but not the asses see. If anything the assessee is placed in a position of a mere faciiitator between its subscriber and the other service provider, facilitating a roaming call to be made by the subscriber. The assessee cannot be said to have used the equipment which is involved in providing the roaming facility. The assessee collects the roaming charges from its subscriber and passes it on to the other service provider. It is relevant at this juncture to get into the judgement of the apex court in the case of BSNL and Another vs Union of India and Others (2006) 282 ITR 273 (Se). One of the questions which arose for consideration was whether there was any transfer of a right to use any goods by providing access or telephone connection by the telephone service provider to a subscriber. Referring to section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which respect of exclusive privilege gives in telecommunication and the power to grant licences to the Central Government, it was contended by the service providers that they provided only a service by the utilization of telegraph licensed to them for the benefit of the subscribers.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 65 - Cited by 81 - Full Document

Account Officer (Cash), Kanpur vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), ... on 24 August, 2018

In fact, this court after referring to judgment of the Supreme Court in BSNL & ANOTHER V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS reported in (2006) 145 STC 91 upheld the assessee's contention holding that there is no sale involved in Sim Cards or Recharge coupons attracting sales tax and the transactions are for rendering mobile services because only through Sim Cards the customer can avail the mobile services from the assessee and Recharge coupons are nothing but air time charges paid by customers in advance for availing mobile services from the assessee....
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit(Osd), Circle-8,, Ahmedabad vs Vodafone West Ltd., Ahmedabad on 17 November, 2016

The real test to be considered is whether it is possible to say that it is the assessee who has used the equipment and has paid the roaming charges to the other service provider with whom it has entered into a national roaming agreement. We hold that it is not possible to say so because if at all anyone can be said to have used the equipment it can only be the subscriber of the assessee but not the assessee. If anything the assessee is placed in a position of a mere facilitator between its subscriber and the other service provider, facilitating a roaming call to be made by the subscriber. The assessee cannot be said to have used the equipment which is involved in providing the roaming facility. The assessee collects the roaming charges from its subscriber and passes it on to the other service provider. It is relevant at this juncture to get into the judgement of the apex court in the case of BSNL and Another vs Union of India and Others (2006) 282 ITR 273 (SC). One of the questions which arose for consideration was whether there was any transfer of a right to use any goods by providing access or telephone connection by the telephone service provider to a subscriber. Referring to section 4 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives exclusive privilege in respect of telecommunication and the power to grant licences to the Central Government, it was contended by the service providers that they provided only a service by the utilization of telegraph licensed to them for the benefit of the subscribers.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 72 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bharti Airtel Ltd ( Mobility Division ), ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 28 March, 2013

The Hon'ble High Court after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of BSNL and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 145 STC 91 upheld the contention of Page 11 of 24 ITA NO. 3681, 3682, 3877 & 3878 Mum/2011 M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Mumbai the assessee that there was no sale involved and therefore transaction did not attract sale tax liability and that the transactions were only for rendering mobile services. In the said judgment in WP (C) no. 29202/2005, the High Court held that the transaction with the distributor in the pre paid scheme was not sale of goods but for services rendered because as per distribution agreement, the enrollment of subscribers with proper verification and documentation was the responsibility of the distributor and the assessee had not paid any amount to the distributor in the pre paid scheme other than the margin allowed to the distributors. Therefore, the margin allowed was nothing but for services rendered by the distributor whose role was that of a middleman between the service provider and the assessee. The distributor actually canvassed business for the assessee and only through the distributors and retailers the assessee got subscribers for the mobile service. Thus the role of distributor was like an agent and the relationship between assessee and distributor was not "principal to principal". The assessee had also argued before the High Court of Kerala that the distributors were free to charge any amount from the subscribers or the retailers below the MRP and therefore the distributors could passé part of the margin to the retailers and subscribers. It was thus argued that in case tax was deducted on the margin money part of which may not be recovered by the distributor. Therefore, the deduction of tax was not justified. The High Court however, did not accept the argument advanced and observed that there was specific provision u/s 197 of IT Act as per which the assessee could apply to the department for getting certificate to receive discount or commission without deduction of tax at source or with deduction at lower rate of tax. The High court also observed that there was no difference in the service rendered by the distributor under the post paid scheme and the pre paid scheme and therefore there was no justification for non deduction of tax in case of pre paid scheme when the tax was being deducted in case of post paid scheme. The High Court accordingly upheld the decision of Page 12 of 24 ITA NO. 3681, 3682, 3877 & 3878 Mum/2011 M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Mumbai Cochin Bench of Tribunal holding that margin money was nothing but commission for services rendered which was liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194 H of the IT Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sumam Enterprises vs The State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2009

4. Subsequently, the common issue as projected in the present case as to whether the transaction involved any Sale so as to attract tax liability under KVAT Act had come up for consideration before another Division Bench (one of the learned Judges being the same) in a group of cases which led to the W.P.(C) Nos. 35432 & 36387 OF 2005, 36525 OF 2007, 770, 1764, 5031, 5269, 12834 & 28873 OF 2008 3 judgment dated 13.02.2009 in W.P(C) Nos. 27445 of 2005 and and connected cases. Referring to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in BSNL & Another vs. Union of India and others [(2006)145 STC 91] and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court earlier (2009(1) KLT 889), it was clearly held that there was no sale of goods involved with regard to the distribution of SIM Cards and Recharge Coupons and that it will only attract 'Service Tax', being a taxable service as made clear already.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

C.C.E., Indore vs M/S. Photo Fast Colour Lab on 23 July, 2015

2. The Revenue has contended that the cost to material is to be added to the value of the photographic services and cited the judgement of CESTAT in the case of Deluxe Colour lab [2006 (4) STR 152 (Tri. Del.)]. The Revenue also stated that the decision of the apex court in the case of CK Jidheesh Vs. Union of India [2006 (1) STR 3 (SC)] which was relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been overturned by the Supreme Court in the case of BSNL and another versus Union of India [2006 (2) STR 161 (SC)]. However, during hearing, the Ld. Departmental Representative fairly concedes that the issue has since been settled by Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka etc Vs. Pro Lab and Others etc. [2015  TIOL  08  SC  CT  LB].
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1