Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise

Refund - liability of revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB commences from date of expiry of three months from date of receipt of application for refund not on expiry of said period from date on which order of refund is made - SC

THE question is whether the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund or on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made?

Held: the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee is given option not to pay for allotment of shares under ESOP Scheme but same is to be deducted at time of sale, no transfer can be said to have taken place - Whether such valuable right is capital asset, liable to LTCG tax - YES, rules ITAT

THE issues before the Tribunal are - Whether when the assessee is given the option not to pay for the purchase of shares at the time of allotment under the ESOP Scheme but the same is to be deducted at the time of sale of shares, no transfer can be said to have taken place and whether when shares, not transferred physically, are held for three years before redemption, such a valuable right is to be treated as capital asset, liable to capital gains tax. And the verdict goes in favour the assessee.

Service Tax

Distributor not C&F Agent - CESTAT By Majority

THE factual matrix of this case clearly indicates that the appellant never acted as C&F agent or a consignment agent as rightly held by Member (Judicial). It is correctly argued by the Counsel and held by Member (Judicial) that it is not open to a C&F agent to sell the goods to independent parties and at a cost, which can be decided by himself. In the case in hand, it is very clear that the appellant is allowed to sell the goods even at a price lower than the prices, which were indicated by IPCL. All these indicate that the appellant had acted as a distributor and not as C&F agent of IPCL

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements