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
  • 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

        -

        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 Seeks Clarity on CENVAT Credit for Service Tax: President to Constitute Larger Bench</h1> <h3>M/s. Bank of America Versus Principal Commissioner, Mumbai East</h3> M/s. Bank of America Versus Principal Commissioner, Mumbai East - TMI Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on the premium paid to DICGC.2. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on the commission paid to brokers for underwriting government securities and maintaining SLR.3. Penalties imposed.Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax Paid on the Premium Paid to DICGC:The issue of whether banks can claim CENVAT Credit for service tax paid on premiums to the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) has been settled by the larger bench of the tribunal in the case of South Indian Bank. The tribunal held that such CENVAT Credit is admissible. This decision has been followed in subsequent cases by the Mumbai Bench in DBS Bank Ltd, Yes Bank Ltd, and IndusInd Bank. The tribunal noted that the premium paid to DICGC is a statutory requirement for banks to insure depositors' accounts, and the service tax paid on this premium qualifies as an input service for providing output services.2. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax Paid on Brokerage:The appellant argued that the services of stock brokers are essential for underwriting government securities and maintaining the Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) as mandated by the Reserve Bank of India and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. They contended that these services are necessary for conducting banking operations and should be eligible for CENVAT Credit. The tribunal referred to the decision in South Indian Bank and other relevant cases, which supported the admissibility of CENVAT Credit for services availed to fulfill statutory obligations. However, the tribunal also noted that the matter needs reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip Kumar and Co., which emphasized strict interpretation of fiscal statutes. Consequently, the tribunal referred the issue to the President for constituting a larger bench to clarify the admissibility of CENVAT Credit for services availed to fulfill statutory obligations.3. Penalties Imposed:The appellant argued that the penalties imposed under Section 78 should be set aside or restricted to 25% of the disputed CENVAT amount. They also contended that no penalty should be imposed for credits reversed along with interest prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, citing various decisions that supported this view. The tribunal noted that the penalty provisions and the appellant's compliance with statutory requirements need to be considered in light of the relevant legal precedents.Conclusion:The tribunal concluded that the issues of admissibility of CENVAT Credit for service tax paid on DICGC premiums and brokerage services require further examination. The matter was referred to the President for constituting a larger bench to address the following questions:a. Whether the interpretation of legal provisions in the South Indian Bank decision satisfies the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar and Co.b. Whether CENVAT Credit for services availed to fulfill statutory obligations is admissible even if the services do not qualify as input services under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.c. Whether Rule 6(3B) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, allows banks to claim credit for all services without establishing that the services are common input services for providing exempted and taxable services.Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02.11.2020.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found