Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant, being a partner in the partnership firm M/s. Sree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals, was entrusted with extracting iron ore from the leased mine. As a managing partner, the appellant received 64% of the extracted ore as a share of profit, while the other partners received 36%. The Revenue alleged that service tax was payable on the value of the 64% ore received by the appellant, classifying it as "Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas Services." However, the CESTAT held that the appellant's receipt of 64% ore was merely a profit share as a partner and not consideration for rendering services. Relying on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Cadilla Healthcare Ltd., the CESTAT ruled that a partner's profit share cannot be considered a consideration for services rendered to the partnership firm. Consequently, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeal.
The appellant, being a partner in the partnership firm M/s. Sree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals, was entrusted with extracting iron ore from the leased mine. As a managing partner, the appellant received 64% of the extracted ore as a share of profit, while the other partners received 36%. The Revenue alleged that service tax was payable on the value of the 64% ore received by the appellant, classifying it as "Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas Services." However, the CESTAT held that the appellant's receipt of 64% ore was merely a profit share as a partner and not consideration for rendering services. Relying on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Cadilla Healthcare Ltd., the CESTAT ruled that a partner's profit share cannot be considered a consideration for services rendered to the partnership firm. Consequently, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
