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

        <h1>Service tax demand upheld on foreign currency expenditure under reverse charge mechanism despite reconciliation failures</h1> <h3>LINDE ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara</h3> LINDE ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara - TMI Issues Involved:1. Professional Fees/Engineering Services2. Corporate Cost Allocation (Employee Secondment Cost)3. Bank Guarantee Commission Charges4. Bank Charges5. Subscription/License Fees6. Repairs and Maintenance (Material Purchase)7. Other Expenses (including Payment to Government Authorities, Protective Clothing, Books/Magazines, School Fees, Reimbursement of Insurance Charges, etc.)Summary of Judgment:1. Professional Fees/Engineering Services:The appellant argued that the services were provided and consumed outside India, thus not liable for service tax. The tribunal held that the services were taxable under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, as they were received by a recipient located in India for business purposes, irrespective of where the services were performed.2. Corporate Cost Allocation (Employee Secondment Cost):The appellant contended that seconded employees were under their control, forming an employer-employee relationship, thus exempt from service tax. The tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Northern Operating Systems Pvt Ltd., held that the seconded employees were effectively providing 'Consulting Engineer Services' and were taxable.3. Bank Guarantee Commission Charges:The appellant claimed these charges had already suffered service tax when paid by the bank. The tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd., held that no additional service tax was chargeable as there was no consideration beyond reimbursement.4. Bank Charges:The tribunal remanded the issue back to the adjudicating authority for re-examination, directing the appellant to provide supporting documents to substantiate their claim that these were bank commissions for foreign remittances already subjected to service tax.5. Subscription/License Fees:The appellant argued these were for software purchases classified as goods. The tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify the nature of the software from the invoices to determine if they were goods or services.6. Repairs and Maintenance (Material Purchase):The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax on Rs. 1,89,905/- as the appellant failed to provide evidence that these payments were for goods.7. Other Expenses:- Payment to Government Authorities: The tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, instructing the appellant to provide relevant documents to determine the nature of these tax payments.- Protective Clothing: The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax as these were part of the gross amount charged for consulting engineer services.- Books/Magazines: The tribunal set aside the demand for the period before 01.07.2012, stating the service was not specified as taxable. For the period after 01.07.2012, it was held to be non-taxable as the service provider was outside India.- Reimbursement of Insurance Charges, Relocation Charges, School Fees, and Salary Plus Other Reimbursements: The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax, considering these as part of the taxable consulting engineer services.- Demurrage Charges: The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax as the appellant failed to provide evidence that these payments were not taxable.- Purchase of Dispenser: The tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication to verify the nature of the purchase from the invoices.- Conference and Meeting, Sundry Expenses, and Unreconcilable Expenses: The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax as the appellant failed to prove these were not taxable.Time Limit for Demand:The tribunal upheld the extended time period for demanding service tax, citing suppression and misrepresentation of facts by the appellant.Conclusion:The appeal was disposed of with specific directions and findings for each issue, with some matters remanded for fresh adjudication.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found