Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.

By Vijay Kumar

Service Tax

ST - Later inclusion of some aspect in scope of levy will have to be taken as non-inclusion of same earlier, when other portion remained the same – Fire Proofing service specifically included under category of ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services' – Benefit of Notfn 12/03 claimed by the assessee available – CENVAT credit of input services not deniable - CESTAT

THE Tribunal observed that there is force in the contention of the appellant that later inclusion of some aspect in the scope of levy which will have to be taken as non-inclusion of the same earlier, when the other portion remained the same. The appeal was allowed by granting them the benefit of input tax credits on input services and benefit of Notification No. 12/2003.

Central Excise

Cement and bitumen used as construction material, not entitled for MODVAT; however MS Angles are entitled: High Court

THE expression ‘in the manufacture' while refers to the items used in manufacturing of the final product, the expression ‘for the manufacture' covers the other items which may not be necessarily part of the new manufactured product, but used in the machinery or plant, for the purposes of manufacturing the final product.

Income Tax

I-T - JV between owner of property and builder - Mere grant of permissive right to build on land would not amount to transfer of capital asset - Rights will crystallize only if and when proposed multi-storeyed building would come into existence - Consideration received is merely an advance for sale consideration which is yet to come into existence - No capital gains tax leviable: Delhi HC

WHEN a land owner enters into an arrangement with a builder wherein the builder gets the right to construct a property and in return the landowner receives a certain sum of money as advance in addition to a part of the property proposed to be constructed thereon as consideration. In a recent judgment delivered by the High Court it held that such consideration cannot be treated as capital gains since a mere grant of a permissive right to build on a plot of land would not amount to any transfer of capital asset.

See our columns Monday for the judgements