Jurisprudentiol - Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.UP Trade Tax

If an entry contained in a notification imposing tax is ambiguous, the assessee cannot suffer therefore; As paddy and rice are considered to be the separate commodities, paddy husk cannot be treated to be rice husk - Supreme Court

WHEN a paddy is dehusked, it becomes paddy husk and when the rice is dehusked, it becomes rice husk. There are many other fruits which have two layers; for example Pista, Cashew Nut and Ground Nut etc. One may only remove the outer cover and take the fruit or grain with the inner cover but one may like to take out the inner cover also which will depend upon the taste of the person concerned. Some persons may like to take 'brown rice' but some other may like to take 'white rice'.

Service Tax

Registered office would determine the jurisdiction of the Central Excise Commissioner to adjudge service tax cases - Revenue loses yet another case as there is no notification appointing Chief Commissioner

REVENUE failed to produce copies of Notifications in the Official Gazette for perusal by the Bench and to satisfy that the signatories to the Review Order were authorized Authorities notified according to the procedure known to law to perform the functions of the Reviewing Authority. Accordingly, we are compelled to declare the act of review ab initio void and non est.

Income Tax

TDS - KPMG requisitions services of experts from own global network - cryptic invoice - disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) upheld; Quality check and risk analysis are not 'commercial knowledge' - no royalty: ITAT

RAISING invoice is an art which may pay dividend on certain occasions and may not on others in terms of income tax liability. This is what happened in the case of MNC consulting and audit firm KPMG. It is normal practice in KPMG India to requisition the services of experts and other professionals working in their global network whenever they get an assignment in India and find that calling a non-resident expert may prove more beneficial for the project. But in most cases considered by the Tribunal in the instant case, they erred in not deducting TDS. In some cases the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of their payments made for the services of such experts has been upheld, and in some cases, the issue has gone back to the AO as adequate information could not be obtained from the invoice and other documents to decipher the nature of services rendered.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements