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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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 :

        📋
        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>Service tax demand dropped on reimbursable expenses as appellant established pure agency relationship with clients</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata Versus M/s. Chatterjee & Sons Pvt. Ltd.</h3> CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the department's appeal regarding service tax on reimbursable expenses collected by the appellant for CHG services. The tribunal ... Valuation - inclusion of reimbursable amount in addition to the charges collected by them for the CHG service - pure agency services - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the appellant has specific agreements with 56 clients and there is no dispute that the charges collected by them can be classified as pure agents. The adjudicating authority has issued a certificate stating that the charges collected by the appellant are pure agents. The adjudicating authority has relied upon the Chartered Accountants Certificate and came to the conclusion that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the reimbursable expenses demanded by the department on the charges collected as pure agents. The department has not brought in any evidence to show that the reimbursable expenses collected by the appellant are not towards rendering of service as pure agents. The Chartered Accountants Certificate specifically clarifies that these reimbursable expenses are collected by the appellant as pure agents. In the accounts of appeal, the review contended that there is no indication in the order in which the adjudicating authority has cross-verified the Chartered Accountants Certificate with primary documents such as bills, invoices and other relevant records. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountants. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the land adjudicating authority by relying on the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountants. The demand dropped in the impugned order is upheld - the adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the demand on the basis of the impugned order on this court - appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Dropping of the demand of Service tax on the 'reimbursable expenses' collected by the Respondent as 'Pure Agents'.2. Dropping of the demand of service tax on the difference between the amounts recorded in the Profit & Loss Account and ST-3 Return.Detailed Analysis:1. Dropping of the demand of Service tax on the 'reimbursable expenses' collected by the Respondent as 'Pure Agents':The Respondent, a Custom House Agent (CHA), entered into agreements with clients to act as 'pure agents.' They collected reimbursable expenses incurred on behalf of the principals, which they excluded from the assessable value for service tax purposes. The Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata, examined the agreements and invoices, concluding that the Respondent fulfilled the conditions stipulated under Explanation-1 of 'Pure Agent.' The Commissioner relied on Board Circular No.119/13/2009-ST and the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Rajkot v. Reliance Industries Ltd., holding that reimbursable expenses are not includable in the assessable value for service tax computation. Consequently, the demand raised in the Notice on 'reimbursable expenses' was dropped.The Revenue contended that the adjudicating authority relied on a Chartered Accountant Certificate without verification and did not consider certain taxable values received from SEZ developers. The Revenue argued that the Respondent failed to prove their status as 'Pure Agents' and that the adjudicating authority did not examine whether all 'reimbursable expenses' could be considered receipts under 'pure agents.'The Tribunal observed that the Chartered Accountant issued the certificate after verifying primary documents, and the Department did not provide evidence to substantiate allegations against the certificate's genuineness. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, noting that the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. held that 'reimbursable expenses' collected as 'Pure Agents' are not includable in the assessable value for service tax purposes.2. Dropping of the demand of service tax on the difference between the amounts recorded in the Profit & Loss Account and ST-3 Return:The Show Cause Notice demanded service tax on the difference between amounts recorded in the Profit & Loss Account and the ST-3 return. The Respondent argued that their accounts were prepared on an accrual basis, while service tax was paid on a receipt basis during the material period. The adjudicating authority accepted this submission, holding that service tax was correctly paid based on the gross amount received during the respective financial years. Consequently, the demand raised on this count was also dropped.The Tribunal found that the Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account were prepared on an accrual basis, while service tax was payable on a receipt basis. The Department demanded service tax based on Bank Statements and the Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account. The adjudicating authority examined the issue and dropped the demand, as there was no evidence to substantiate that the differential amount was received for rendering taxable services.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to drop the demands raised in the Notice. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming that the Respondent fulfilled the conditions of 'Pure Agent' and correctly paid service tax based on the gross amount received during the respective financial years.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found