TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Kolkata: Reimbursement expenses in taxable service value</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., BBSR-I Versus NILALOHITA ENTERPRISES</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA considered whether reimbursement expenses should be included in the gross value of taxable service. The Tribunal ... - Issues involved: Determination of whether reimbursement expenses should form part of the gross value of taxable service and the tenability of relief granted by the First Appellate Authority.In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA considered the issue of whether reimbursement expenses should be included in the gross value of taxable service. The Revenue argued that the relief granted to the Respondent by the First Appellate Authority was based on a misconstrued Board Circular. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly allowed the reimbursement of expenses as a deduction from the gross value. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had based their decision on the Board's Circular, stating that no penalty was leviable on the Respondent due to the infancy stage of the relevant statute at the time. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not presented a clear case for including reimbursement expenses in the taxable service at that stage, and therefore, decided to fix a hearing date for further consideration. Until then, the first appellate order allowing the deduction of expenses would prevail.The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a thorough examination of the legal aspects involved in determining whether reimbursement expenses should be considered part of the taxable service. The decision highlighted the need for both parties to present their arguments and relevant documents at the upcoming hearing scheduled for 7th February, 2007. The Tribunal acknowledged the potential hardship that could arise from staying the operation of the first appellate order but recognized the recurring implications of the matter at hand. As a result, the Tribunal opted to defer a final decision until the scheduled hearing date, maintaining the status quo in the interim.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
