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>Tribunal rules expenses not taxable pre-2015 amendment. Appeal allowed.</h1> <h3>COL. AMARJIT SINGH SAHOTA (RETD) Versus COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE UDAIPUR</h3> COL. AMARJIT SINGH SAHOTA (RETD) Versus COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE UDAIPUR - TMI Issues Involved:- Inclusion of reimbursable expenses in the taxable value under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.Summary:The present appeal concerns the inclusion of wages, telephone bills, and electricity charges paid by an individual on behalf of a company in the taxable value under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant provided services to a company and received payments for the same, categorized as 'Business Auxiliary Service.' The demand for recovery was based on this classification, leading to a dispute regarding the inclusion of reimbursable expenses in the taxable income. The appellant challenged the retrospective application of an amendment in Section 67, citing relevant legal precedents.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. It was acknowledged that the appellant managed company operations for a fixed consideration, including commission and incentives, and also received reimbursements for certain expenses. The key issue was whether these reimbursable expenses should be part of the taxable value. The Tribunal analyzed the legal position post the 2015 amendment to Section 67, emphasizing that unless expressly provided, statutory changes are prospective. Legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, clarified that prior to the amendment, reimbursable expenses were not considered taxable income.Referring to specific cases and court decisions, the Tribunal highlighted that reimbursements for expenses like fuel, electricity, and telephone bills were not to be included in the taxable value before the 2015 amendment. The Tribunal concluded that the order under challenge incorrectly applied the law retrospectively, leading to the decision to set it aside and allow the appeal. The judgment emphasized that prior to the 2015 amendment, reimbursable expenses were not to be included in the taxable income, aligning with established legal interpretations.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the legal principles and precedents discussed during the hearing.
TaxTMI 