|
II. Useful Case Laws:
1. CIT Vs. Ashwani Chopra, ITA No. 353 of 2011, Date of Decision: 10.01.2013, High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Partition of family properties does not amount to transfer, when there is no transfer of asset.
The Division
Bench of Karnataka High Court in R. Nagaraja Rao’s case (supra) has held
that partition is not a transfer and adjustment of shares,
crystallization of the respective rights in the family properties cannot
be construed as a transfer in the eye of law. When there is no transfer
of asset, there is no capital gain and consequently there is no
liability to pay tax on capital gains.
In view of the
aforesaid principles of law, we find that the payment of Rs.24 crores
to Group A is to equalize the inequalities in partition of the assets of
M/s Hind Samachar Ltd. The amount so paid is immovable property. If
such amount is to be treated as income liable to tax, the inequalities
would set in as the share of the recipient will diminish to the extent
of tax. Since the amount paid during the course of partition is to
settle the inequalities in partition, therefore deemed to be immovable
property. Such amount is not an income liable to tax. Thus, the amount
of owelty i.e. compensation deposited by Group B is to equalize the
partition represents immovable property and will not attract capital
gain.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Futura Polyester Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Appeal Nos. ST/69 & 70 of 2005, Date of Order: 30-07-2012, CESTAT -
Bangalore
Merely making entry in books of account did not amount to provision of service
Merely making
entry in the books of accounts does not render that the appellants have
provided any service. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Association of Leasing & Financial Service Companies v.
Union of India [2010] 29 STT 316 (SC) that when no service has been
rendered, service tax cannot be levied. As held by the apex court in the
case of Union of India v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. [2009] 20 STT
203 (SC). The Notification No.19/2008 cannot be said to be have
retrospective effect, wherein it was explained that “deems creation of
book entry” as receipt of consideration is not retrospective in nature.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now