Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Service Tax
Commercial Training & Coaching Centre - Notf. 9/2003-ST & 24/2004-ST on true and fair construction merely requires that vocational coaching or training imparted must impart skills which enable trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment - It does not require establishment of fact whether one or some or all of students of assessee institute have obtained employment or have pursued self employment after conclusion of course of instruction - Exemption available - Appeal allowed: CESTAT
THE appellant runs a film and media business and conducts the courses in B.A in journalism; post graduate diploma courses in Print, Television; on-line journalism and media management apart from short term courses such as anchoring and dramatic arts, direction and script writing; television production; TV and Radio anchoring and presentation etc. During the period under consideration, the appellant claimed exemption from payment of Service Tax on the taxable activity of "commercial training and coaching centre" in terms of notification 9/2003-ST dt. 20.06.2003 & notification 24/2004-ST dt. 10.09.2004 under the category of ‘a vocational training institute' which is defined in the Explanation to the notification as a commercial training or coaching centre which provides vocational coaching or training that impart skills to enable the trainee to seek employment or undertake self-employment, directly after such training or coaching.
Income Tax
Whether expression 'a residential house' mentioned in Sec 54 effectively means one flat - NO, AP HC agrees with Karnataka HC decision
THE assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 declaring a net income of Rs.43,97,840/-. Before the assessing officer, the assessee offered under the head, long term capital gains, a sum of Rs.41.00 lakhs contending that he had inherited an ancestral house property which was sold during the year under consideration and the resultant long term capital gains were offered from sale of the said house; that he had taken the sale consideration of Rs.1,99,50,000/- for arriving at the capital gains even though the sale deed mentioned the sale consideration as Rs.2,66,00,000/-; that out of the sale consideration he had purchased two flats in May Fair Apartment, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and he was entitled to claim deduction/exemption under Section 54 of the Act for an amount of Rs.93,80,192/- and that in view of the decision in CIT Vs. Ananda Basappa (), even though Section 54 mentioned that the proceeds should be invested in "a residential house", it being a beneficial provision, it should be construed liberally and the deduction cannot be restricted to only one residential house and it should be extended to the purchase of two adjacent residential flats. The assessing officer held that the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption in respect of Rs.93,80,192/- but only to the extent of Rs.45,52,860/- comprising of consideration of Rs.42,36,000/- and a stamp duty of Rs.3,16,860/- utilized for investment on one of the flats by the assessee on the ground that the inspection report of the I.T.I. deputed by the assessing officer showed that what was purchased were two residential units separated by a strong wall; that they were purchased from two different vendors under two separate sale deeds and as such the deduction under Section 54 has to be restricted to only one flat.
Central Excise
Cookers removed in bulk packing from factory along with extra (single) cartons - at depot, cookers are repacked in single cartons by using packing material cleared from factory - CENVAT credit not admissible for period prior to 14/05/2003 since depot was not defined as ‘place of removal' u/s 4 of CEA, 1944 - however, larger period of limitation not invokable as appellant declaring packing material in RG-23 Pt I returns - Appeal allowed: CESTAT
THE appellant is engaged in the manufacture of presser-cookers. They cleared the manufactured cookers to their Deport, C.F.A. in bulk cartons (containing many cookers) along with extra cartons (meant for repacking of the cookers independently) before dispatch to their whole sellers and distributors for sale. The appellant availed input tax credit (on such packing material) with the understanding and belief that the extra or individual cartons have been used in relation to the manufacture of final products. It is also their case that the cookers are not sold without the individual cartons as per the requirement and business practice of the appellant. Only for the sake of convenience, the cookers are removed from the factory in bulk packing along with the extra (single) cartons to its depot or C&F agent, which is not on sale. Thereafter, the cookers are repacked in the single cartons at the depot of the appellant from where they are dispatched to the whole sellers or distributors on sale. This practice was regularly being followed for several years and the same was in the knowledge of the department.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a Nice Day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com