Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
  • 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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Tribunal Upholds Decision on Operating Leases Classification

        CCE And ST, New Delhi Versus M/s Lease Plan India Limited

        CCE And ST, New Delhi Versus M/s Lease Plan India Limited - 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. J73 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:
        1. Classification of lease agreements as financial lease or operating lease.
        2. Applicability of service tax under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services (BOFS).
        3. Examination of Accounting Standard AS-19.
        4. Ownership and depreciation of leased assets.
        5. Legal precedents and interpretations by the Supreme Court.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Classification of Lease Agreements:
        The respondent-assessee engaged in financial and operating leases of vehicles was paying service tax under BOFS for financial leases. The dispute arose over whether their operating lease transactions should also be taxed under BOFS. The Revenue argued that the terms and conditions of both types of leases were similar, implying that operating leases should be classified as financial leases and taxed accordingly.

        2. Applicability of Service Tax under BOFS:
        The Revenue initiated proceedings against the respondent-assessee, issuing show cause cum demand notices for Rs. 24,39,00,455/- covering 2004-05 to 2011-12. The Original Authority, however, distinguished between financial and operating leases, concluding that operating leases were not covered under BOFS and thus not liable for service tax. The Revenue appealed this decision.

        3. Examination of Accounting Standard AS-19:
        The Revenue contended that the criteria of AS-19 should be used to classify the leases. AS-19 mandates that financial leases be shown as receivables by the lessor and as assets by the lessee, who also claims depreciation. Conversely, operating leases are recorded as assets by the lessor, who claims depreciation, and the lessee only pays rental charges. The Commissioner, after examining AS-19 and relevant legal provisions, concluded that the respondent’s operating leases did not qualify as financial leases.

        4. Ownership and Depreciation of Leased Assets:
        The respondent-assessee argued that under financial leases, the lessee is the owner and claims depreciation, while under operating leases, the lessor retains ownership and claims depreciation. The Commissioner found that the respondent’s operating leases were correctly categorized as such, with the lessor (respondent) showing the assets and claiming depreciation, thus not liable for service tax under BOFS.

        5. Legal Precedents and Interpretations by the Supreme Court:
        The Commissioner and the Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including the Association of Leasing and Financial Service Companies case, which distinguished between financial and operating leases. The Supreme Court held that financial leases transfer all risks and rewards of ownership to the lessee, while operating leases do not. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner’s reliance on these precedents, affirming that the respondent’s operating leases were not financial leases and thus not subject to service tax under BOFS.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal upheld the Original Authority’s decision, dismissing the Revenue’s appeals. It found no factual or legal error in the Commissioner’s order, which was based on a thorough examination of lease agreements, AS-19, and relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal confirmed that the respondent’s operating leases were not liable for service tax under BOFS, as they were correctly classified and taxed as operating leases.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found