Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.92 seconds)Section 78 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 93 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, ... on 12 September, 2017
17. Learned Counsel relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Sunrise
ST/87767, 87816, 88114, 88115/2017 & ST/85728/2019
17
Immigration Consultants Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs,
Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh [2018 (5) TMI 1417-
CESTAT Chandigarh holding that referral of potential
students/customers of banks/educational institutions by the appellant
for commission is not taxable as 'intermediary' , in Evalueserve SEZ
Pvt Ltd and Anr v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service
Tax, Chandigarh [2018 (12) TMI 1242-CESTAT Chandigarh] holding
that receipt of consideration from overseas client excluded them from
tax as 'intermediary', in Valmiki Consultants Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner
of Customs & Central Tax, Hyderabad [2008 (11) TMI 1085-CESTAT
Hyderabad], which followed the decision of the Tribunal in re Sunrise
Immigration Consultants Pvt Ltd and other decisions of similar nature
cited therein, in Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax, Gurgaon - II
v. Orange Business Solutions Pvt Ltd [2019-VIL-332-CESTAT-CHD-
ST] and in Verizone India Pvt Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax,
Delhi [2019-VIL-527-CESTAT-DEL-ST]. The commonality in all these
decisions, either setting aside orders of the adjudicating authority or
upholding of proceedings dropped by the adjudicating/appellate
authority, is that taxability as 'intermediary' service was impugned
before the Tribunal. These are, just as strikingly, similar in arriving at
the respective decisions by referring to the agreements. The decisions
in these disputes, based on scrutiny of each contract, are, therefore, not
binding precedents but the ratio emerging therefrom, viz, that test of
ST/87767, 87816, 88114, 88115/2017 & ST/85728/2019
18
conformity with description of 'intermediary' turns on the nature of the
particular contractual engagement entered into with the overseas entity,
may be usefully appropriated.
Jt.Commr.Of Income Tax,Surat vs Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd on 7 May, 2010
18. Learned Authorized Representative emphasizes the conditions in
the agreement which, according to her, subordinates the appellant-
assessee to the overseas entity. Relying vastly upon the exposition on
'intermediaries' in Taxation of Services: An Education Guide of
Central Board of Excise & Customs [published on 20th June 2012], she
took us through the several questions and answers therein to support
her contention that the assessee was, indeed, an intermediary as
intended by the enactment. According to her, section 66C of Finance
Act, 1994 is explicit in asserting that none of deeming fiction in Place
of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 is invalidated merely because of
ST/87767, 87816, 88114, 88115/2017 & ST/85728/2019
19
the location of provider and/or receiver outside the taxable territory.
She also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joint
Commr of Income Tax, Surat v. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd [2010
(253) ELT 705 (SC)] and in Krishena Kumar and ors v. Union of India
and ors [(1990) 4 SCC 207].
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
18. Learned Authorized Representative emphasizes the conditions in
the agreement which, according to her, subordinates the appellant-
assessee to the overseas entity. Relying vastly upon the exposition on
'intermediaries' in Taxation of Services: An Education Guide of
Central Board of Excise & Customs [published on 20th June 2012], she
took us through the several questions and answers therein to support
her contention that the assessee was, indeed, an intermediary as
intended by the enactment. According to her, section 66C of Finance
Act, 1994 is explicit in asserting that none of deeming fiction in Place
of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 is invalidated merely because of
ST/87767, 87816, 88114, 88115/2017 & ST/85728/2019
19
the location of provider and/or receiver outside the taxable territory.
She also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joint
Commr of Income Tax, Surat v. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd [2010
(253) ELT 705 (SC)] and in Krishena Kumar and ors v. Union of India
and ors [(1990) 4 SCC 207].