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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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>Tribunal allows deduction for dealers' margin and excludes interest on security deposit from assessable value.</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the deduction of Rs. 5100/- per vehicle as dealers' margin and excluding the MSPSD of Rs. 2000/- ... Valuation Issues Involved:1. Deduction of dealers' margin (trade discount) of Rs. 5100/- per vehicle.2. Non-inclusion of 'Material Service Performance Security Deposit' (MSPSD) of Rs. 2000/- per vehicle in the assessable value.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction of Dealers' Margin (Trade Discount) of Rs. 5100/- Per Vehicle:The appellant claimed a deduction of Rs. 5100/- per vehicle as a dealers' margin. The basis for this deduction was that if wholesale dealers were appointed on a principle-to-principle basis, they would have been given this margin. The remuneration to the authorized representatives would be equal to the margin payable to wholesale dealers, thus qualifying as a deduction under Rule 6(a) of the Valuation Rules. The appellant argued that the retail price minus the wholesale price should determine the assessable value, and the deduction of Rs. 5100/- was necessary to arrive at the wholesale price.The Assistant Collector disallowed the claim, but the Collector, on appeal, remanded the matter for a de novo consideration of the dealers' margin. The Collector acknowledged that some deductions for dealers' margin should be allowed but emphasized that expenses like 'publicity,' 'after-sale service,' and 'pre-delivery inspection' should be included in the value and not deducted.The Tribunal, referencing Rule 6(a) of the Valuation Rules and previous judgments, concluded that the deduction of Rs. 5100/- was reasonable and in accordance with trade practice. The Tribunal noted that the retail price of the vehicles was Rs. 1,67,000/-, and the claimed deduction of Rs. 5100/- amounted to approximately 2.9%, which was consistent with the trade practice of other manufacturers like Swaraj Mazda and Allwyn Nissan. The Tribunal found the Collector's observations on excluding certain expenses irrelevant, as the goods were sold at retail and the assessable value should be determined strictly under Rule 6(a). Thus, the appellants were entitled to the deduction of Rs. 5100/- as dealers' margin.2. Non-inclusion of 'Material Service Performance Security Deposit' (MSPSD) of Rs. 2000/- Per Vehicle:The appellant also claimed that the MSPSD of Rs. 2000/- per vehicle, collected from customers opting for the MSPSD scheme, should not be included in the assessable value. This deposit was intended to ensure that authorized representatives performed the servicing of vehicles and was reimbursed to them upon completion of services. The servicing materials were supplied by the authorized representatives directly to the customers, and the deposit was an advance payment for these materials.The Assistant Collector disallowed the claim, and the Collector upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal found that the MSPSD was optional and represented the cost of materials used in servicing the vehicle, which were not manufactured by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the amount did not enter the manufacturer's pocket and had no nexus with the manufacture of the goods. Therefore, the MSPSD should not be included in the assessable value.Interest on Security Deposit:The Tribunal also addressed the issue of interest accrued on the security deposit. It concluded that since the interest had no relation to the manufacture of Light Commercial Vehicles, it could not be added to the assessable value. The interest obtained from the security deposit was a result of an ancillary activity and unrelated to the production or manufacture of the vehicles.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant on both issues. The deduction of Rs. 5100/- as dealers' margin was deemed justified, and the MSPSD of Rs. 2000/- was not to be included in the assessable value. The interest accrued on the security deposit was also excluded from the assessable value.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found