Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

No investigation whatsoever has been carried beyond point that Director of appellant is NRI and residing in Taiwan for past 25 years - Order set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT

THE department could not show any evidence that the transaction value declared by the appellant was not price actually paid and that buyer and seller of the goods are related persons and the price was not a sole consideration. No investigation whatsoever has been carried out beyond the point that director of the appellant a NRI was residing at Taiwan for 25 years. Further the rejection of transaction value is not supported by evidence of contemporaneous import. However the department took recourse to the theory of preponderance of probability to prove the case. The said theory cannot be a substitute for lack of investigation and absence of evidences.

Income Tax

Whether ancillary profit like DEPB receipts can be said to be derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IC - NO: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether ancillary profit like DEPB receipts can be said to be derived from an industrial undertaking for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IC of the Act and Whether the Revenue can deny deduction u/s 80IC claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not carried out any manufacturing activity on the basis of assumption and suspicion and without laying its hands on any concrete material to prove the same. And verdict partly goes in favour of the assessee.

Service Tax

Whether ‘Vidarbha Cricket Association' is to be considered as ‘Charitable Organization' & is to be held not liable to ST under ‘Club or Association Service' - Difference of opinion between M(J) and M(T) - Matter placed before President for reference to Third Member: CESTAT

THE appellant is a member of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). From the income proceeds of BCCI, the members were given reimbursement under various categories such as, TV Rights subsidy, Tournament receipts, IPL subsidy players' expenses reimbursements and subsidy for international matches. These amounts are given to promote the game of cricket and also to undertake construction of infrastructure for playing cricket within the jurisdiction of the members.

The CCE& ST, Nagpur was of the view that the amounts received from BCCI by the appellant is for providing infrastructure support to BCCI for conducting tournaments and, therefore, the same is classifiable under the category of 'Business Support Services'.

See our Columns Monday for the judgements