Jurisprudentiol– Wednesday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Service Tax
Service received from abroad – No tax prior to 18.04.2006 - – followed – High Court
In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court passed in Indian National Shipowners Association vs Union of India - it stands declared that the Revenue can collect tax only upon being invested with due legal authority; an event which occurred on the insertion of Section 66A in the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 18.04.2006 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2006. This case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship owners Association with which this High Court is in respectful agreement.
Income Tax
Non-resident - assessee makes long-term capital gains on transfer of shares of Indian Co - benefit of indexation and cost of improvement not available under Sec 48 but benefit of 10% tax rate under Proviso to Sec 112 cannot be denied: ITAT
THE rulings of Authority for Advance Ruling are generally treated as only of persuasive value and not having precedence value. But here is a case in which the Tribunal indeed felt persuaded and decided the case in favour of the non-resident assessee. The issue before the Tribunal was whether a non-resident company which has made capital gains from transfer of shares can avail benefits of proviso to Sec 112? And the verdict has gone in favour of the assessee.
Customs
Drinking water supply project – Project Import Benefit - issue before Larger Bench – Competitor of the Appellant not permitted to intervene – however Counsel can address legal submissions: CESTAT LB
The applicant in the present case cannot be said to be an aggrieved party at this stage. The matter referred to the Larger Bench is a legal question. No doubt, it may have some repercussion in respect of domestic manufacturers. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the applicant is a proper party without which the issue cannot be examined properly. Moreover, the members of the applicant after all, are competitors to the appellant. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Application for intervention filed by the applicant is rejected. However, there is no objection for the Senior Counsel, who represented the applicant, to address the legal submissions in the proceedings before the Larger Bench.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com