Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal allows refund claims for export services, including telecom expenses, overturning Commissioner's decision.</h1> <h3>Ness Technologies (India) Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax DivisionV, Mumbai</h3> The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (Appeals)' rejection of refund claims by M/s. Ness Technologies (India) Private Limited. It held that a direct ... Refund - Input services - Nexus with export of services - Business Auxiliary Service, Business Support Service, Management consultant and information technology software service - Held that:- There is no dispute even by the Original authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) that all these services covered under the definition of input services therefore Cenvat Credit is admissible. However, the refund was rejected on the said services on the ground that appellant could not establish nexus of these services with output services. In this regard, I am of the view that since, except small part for which no refund claim was filed, entire services have been undisputedly exported; no one to one co-relation is required to be proved. When entire services have been exported then it cannot be said that nexus of input services with the output services is not established. Nature of amount received against reimbursement of expenses - Held that - it is like export value devided into parts one, value of the software and part two on account of reimbursement; however there is no dispute that both the amounts have been realized in convertible foreign exchange. The reimbursement cannot be treated in isolation but is very much in connection with the export of services. Therefore in my view refund of the service tax on reimbursement which has been realized by the appellant from Foreign Service recipient in convertible foreign is admissible. - Matter remanded back - Impugned order is aside - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Nexus of input services with output services exported.2. Rejection of refund claims based on certain invoices and reimbursement of expenses.3. Telecommunication services used for personal purposes.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nexus of Input Services with Output Services Exported:The appellant, M/s. Ness Technologies (India) Private Limited, filed refund claims for Cenvat Credit on input services used in providing output services, which were exported. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of these claims on the grounds that there was no direct nexus between the input services and the output services exported. The appellant argued that services such as Professional Consultancy fees, Chartered Accountant fees, Telephone charges, rent charges, Internet communication services, Repairs & Maintenance, Cleaning & Housekeeping, Security, Manpower Recruitment & Supply services, Information Technology, rent-a-cab, commercial Training & Coaching Services, computer network services, Information Technology Software services, Telecommunication, and scientific & Technical consultancy services are covered within the definition of input services under Rule 2(l)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had acknowledged these services as input services but rejected the refund on the basis of the alleged lack of nexus with the output services. The Tribunal held that since almost 100% of the services were exported, the need to establish a direct nexus was unnecessary. The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the refund claim on these grounds was incorrect.2. Rejection of Refund Claims Based on Certain Invoices and Reimbursement of Expenses:The Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected part of the refund claims on the grounds that certain invoices were not related to the output services exported and were for personal use or pertained to an earlier period. Additionally, the Commissioner (Appeals) contended that reimbursement charges should not be part of the gross amount of taxable service. The appellant argued that the reimbursement of expenses was part of the export value realized in convertible foreign exchange and should be considered for refund. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's contract with the foreign service recipient included a clause for reimbursement of expenses, which was part of the export value. The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of expenses was in connection with the export of services and should be eligible for a refund. The Tribunal found that the judgment in the case of Bhagwati Traders was not relevant to the present case as it did not pertain to export and refund issues.3. Telecommunication Services Used for Personal Purposes:The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim for telecommunication services on the grounds that the services were used for personal purposes by the employees, as the invoices were in the names of the employees. The appellant contended that the telecommunication services were used for business activities and the invoices, though in the names of employees, also mentioned the company's name. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the telecommunication services were paid for by the company and booked as an expenditure in the company's accounts. The Tribunal held that the telecommunication services were used for business activities related to the export of software technology services and were therefore eligible for a refund.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order, taking into account the Tribunal's observations. The adjudicating authority was directed to dispose of the refund claims within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found