Jurisprudentiol - Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Appellant entering into a tripartite agreement with his agents who would negotiate with corporates on his behalf for promotion of their products by agreeing to model himself for advertisement films, TV commercials, still photography etc.- agents discharging ST liability on whole amount of consideration received - no further ST to be paid by appellant - Appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT

Mr. Zaheerkhan B. Khan, Mumbai was providing services to various corporate for promotion of their products by agreeing to model himself for advertisements films, TV commercials, still photographing, footage, press advertisement, etc. For this purpose, he had entered into a tripartite agreement. As per the said agreement, his agents, namely, M/s. Percept D Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Globosport and M/s. Globo Media Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd. would negotiate with the corporate on his behalf for the activity to be undertaken by him and they would receive consideration from the corporate for the services rendered and would discharge the service tax liability on the whole amount of the consideration received and after deducting the expenses including their commission, they would remit the balance amount to Zaheerkhan .

Income Tax

Whether when assessee, engaged in insurance business, is required to compute income u/s 44, it can still avail exemption u/s 10(34) - YES: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when assessee, engaged in insurance business, is required to compute income u/s 44, it can still avail exemption u/s 10(34); Whether the assessee has correctly taken the negative reserve at ‘0' value as AO has no power to modify the amount after actuarial valuation was done, which was the basis for assessment under Rule 2 of 1st Schedule r.w.s.44 of the I.T. and Whether the profit earned on investments is to be taxed as income from other sources and is to be taxed as income transferred to policy holders' a/c. And the verdict partly favours the assessee.

Central Excise

ROM application by Revenue - 'date of order' mentioned in Section 35C(2) of CEA, 1944 means date of communication of order - since communication has been completed only on 20/06/2011, application filed on 12/09/2011 is not time barred: CESTAT

AGAINST an order dated 08/03/2011 passed by the CESTAT, the Revenue has filed a ROM application on 12/09/2011.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that the application is time barred inasmuch as since the order was passed on 08/03/2011, the ROM application ought to have been filed by 07/09/2011 whereas it has been filed only on 12/09/2011.

See Our columns Tomorrow for the judgements