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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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 :

        2017 (3) TMI 1220 - AT - Service Tax

        📋
        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

        Appellate Tribunal Upholds Service Tax Liability for Profit-Sharing Agreements The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD upheld the liability of the appellant for service tax under business auxiliary service (BAS) due to profit-sharing ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Appellate Tribunal Upholds Service Tax Liability for Profit-Sharing Agreements

                            The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD upheld the liability of the appellant for service tax under business auxiliary service (BAS) due to profit-sharing agreements with service providers, dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal and rejected the appellant's argument that demand notices were time-barred. It concluded that the consideration received by the appellant constituted a form of business auxiliary service, making them liable for service tax on the commission received. The Tribunal affirmed the original order, finding the appellant responsible for the service tax liability.




                            Issues:
                            Interpretation of business auxiliary service (BAS) under Service Tax law; Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Time bar for issuing demand notices; Profit-sharing agreements as consideration for services rendered; Liability of appellant for service tax on commission received.

                            Interpretation of BAS under Service Tax Law:
                            The case involved the appellant, registered under Service Tax, providing maintenance & repair services. During an audit, it was found that the appellant entered into agreements with service providers, receiving commission from suppliers, leading to a demand notice for service tax, interest, and penalties. The Tribunal analyzed whether the activities of the appellant fell within the ambit of business auxiliary service (BAS). It was established that the appellant, a manufacturer providing after-sales service, subcontracted nitrogen refilling to sales agents. Despite the appellant's claim of profit-sharing agreements without service provision, it was determined that the agents were approached by customers based on the appellant's goodwill, making the consideration received a form of business auxiliary service. The Tribunal upheld the liability of the appellant for service tax under BAS, dismissing the appeal.

                            Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
                            The appellant sought condonation of a 17-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to personal reasons like his daughter's marriage and family illness. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the short delay, condoned the delay and proceeded with the appeal for final disposal with the consent of both parties.

                            Time Bar for Issuing Demand Notices:
                            The appellant contended that the demand notice for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 was time-barred, as the audit was conducted in February 2008, and documents were obtained then. Arguing that the demand beyond one year was not sustainable, the appellant raised the issue of time limitation. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument, as the demand notice was issued within the statutory period, leading to the dismissal of this contention.

                            Profit-Sharing Agreements as Consideration for Services Rendered:
                            The appellant defended that the agreements with service providers were profit-sharing arrangements without service provision, disputing the promotion of business for five firms. The appellant claimed that the consideration received was merely profit-sharing and not for services rendered. However, the Tribunal concluded that the consideration received was for promoting business at agreed terms, constituting a business auxiliary service, making the appellant liable for service tax on the commission received.

                            Liability of Appellant for Service Tax on Commission Received:
                            Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original order that found the appellant liable for service tax on the commission received. It noted the balanced analysis by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the well-reasoned findings on the appellant's liability. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

                            This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings regarding the liability of the appellant for service tax on commission received under business auxiliary service.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found