Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.29 seconds)
Involute Engineering Pvt Ltd vs Meerut-I on 14 December, 2020 cites

M/S Paul Merchants Limited vs Cce, Chandigarh on 6 April, 2011

―8. We find from the records that the appellant does not engage himself in assembling and organizing of the imports. His duty as is ascertained from the agreement, indicates that he is supposed to procure the orders and pass it on to the overseas manufacturers; on receipt of such orders, the overseas 19 ST/55146/2013 manufacturers executes the same on his own and the consideration for such supplies is directly paid to the overseas manufacturers by the person who has placed the order. The entire transaction in our considered opinion seems to be of only procurement of orders and the rendering of services, if any, by the appellant is towards the foreign or overseas manufacturers. In our view, this activity though culminates in supplies to Indian Company, cannot be considered as services provided in India. We are fortified in our view by the ratio of the Tribunal in the case of Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. (supra).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 72 - Full Document

M/S. Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd vs C.S.T. New Delhi on 23 September, 2014

9. In this case we find that there was an agreement between the appellant and the foreign telecom service provider as per which the appellant had agreed to provide telecom services to the customers of foreign telecom service provider when he is in India and using the appellant telecom networks. Revenue held a view that the consideration for services rendered in India is taxable under Business Auxiliary Service. The Bench after considering the provisions of ‗Export Services Rules' and Board clarifications, and the decision of Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. case held in favour of the assessee by recording as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 31 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Sgs India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai on 10 February, 2011

This Court followed its earlier decision in SGS India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax 34 STR 554 (Bom.) and held that services of procuring orders and passing it to its overseas principal/parties and receiving payments for the same in foreign exchange, is an activity of export of services covered by the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Therefore, the issue stands concluded in favour of the respondent and against the Appellant by the decision of this Court in ATE.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Gvk Inds. Ltd & Anr vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr on 1 March, 2011

31. It is seen from the aforesaid order that reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in GVK Industries Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer25 wherein it was held, in view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, that even income earned by a foreign entity in respect of the business activities in India can be subjected to tax in India. It is also seen that aforesaid referring 25 2017(49)STR 513 (SC) 22 ST/55146/2013 order distinguishes the decision of the Tribunal in GAP International, ABS India Ltd., Paul Merchants Ltd. and Blue Star Ltd., but there is no reference in the order to the judgements of the Bombay High Court or the Delhi High Court in A.T.E Enterprises Private Limited, Wartsila India Limited and Verizon Communication India Private Limited. The aforesaid decisions of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court, as noticed above, support the case of the appellant. As the High Courts have already expressed views on the issue involved in this appeal, it will not be necessary to await decision on the reference made in ARCELOR Mittal. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 855 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next