Leasing and Financial Service Companies v. Union of India

2 SCC 352Reported decision2011#13730 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Leasing and Financial Service Companies v. Union of India

M/S.MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-010201-010202 - 2010Supreme Court03 Jan 2023

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 3Section 4Section 46Section 51

…ncing which helps the borrower to raise funds without outright payment in the first instance. Here, the “interest” element cannot be compared to consideration for lease/hire, which is in the nature of remuneration (consideration) for hire. 16 (2011) 2 SCC 352. Civil Appeal Nos.10201-10202 of 2010 & Ors. Page 20 of 21 19. Findings of fact generally recorded by the ITAT are treated as conclusive. The High Court can interfere with the findings of fact while deciding a substantial question of law when the findings are not supported by the material on record, so as to be treated as perverse.1…

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

C.A. No.-008228 - 2019Supreme Court09 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 35L(1)(b)Section 64(3)Section 65Section 65(10)Section 65(105)Section 65(12)Section 65(7)Section 83

…ax, is that, interchange fee is paid prior to the receipt of MDR. In other words, the deduction of MDR is done at the time of settling the money to the merchant establishment. This happens only after receiving the amount from the issuing 4 (2011) 2 SCC 352 40 bank, which is net of interchange fee. The interchange fee is the consideration given to the issuing bank for validating the e-transaction, whereas MDR is the consideration for the acquiring bank for settling the merchant establishment. MDR is fixed as the percentage of sale cost or service cost, whereas interchange…

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs. M/S ADANI GAS LTD

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

C.A. No.-002633 - 2020Supreme Court28 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 65(105)(zzz)Section 65(105)(zzzzj)

…ture of saleable goods and production of marketable/saleable services in the form of an activity 10 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India, (2007) 7 SCC 527, para 4. 11 (2011) 2 SCC 352. 15 undertaken by the service provider for consideration, which correspondingly stands consumed by the service receiver. It is this principle of equivalence which is inbuilt into the concept of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. That service tax is, therefore, a tax on an activity. That, service tax is a value added tax. The value…

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 140/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…the Special Bench of I.T.A.T. in the case of “Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT” 135 ITD 165, “Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India”, 154 Taxman 512, “Association of Leasing and Financial Service Companies Vs. Union of India” (2011) 2 SCC 352. Reliance was also placed on CBDT Instruction No.1978 dated 31.12.1999 laying down certain features to determine the ownership of leased asset for the purpose of allowing depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. 14. We have considered the rival contentions. The first and foremost argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that since the Income Tax A…

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 139/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…the Special Bench of I.T.A.T. in the case of “Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT” 135 ITD 165, “Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India”, 154 Taxman 512, “Association of Leasing and Financial Service Companies Vs. Union of India” (2011) 2 SCC 352. Reliance was also placed on CBDT Instruction No.1978 dated 31.12.1999 laying down certain features to determine the ownership of leased asset for the purpose of allowing depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. 14. We have considered the rival contentions. The first and foremost argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that since the Income Tax A…

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

ITA 547/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT (DR) on 4.12.2019
Section 250(6)

…the Special Bench of I.T.A.T. in the case of “Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT” 135 ITD 165, “Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India”, 154 Taxman 512, “Association of Leasing and Financial Service Companies Vs. Union of India” (2011) 2 SCC 352. Reliance was also placed on CBDT Instruction No.1978 dated 31.12.1999 laying down certain features to determine the ownership of leased asset for the purpose of allowing depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. 14. We have considered the rival contentions. The first and foremost argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that since the Income Tax A…

INSTALMART SUPPLY LTD. vs. DCIT,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1156/DEL/2002[1994-1995]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 1994-1995

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year. 1994-95

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…vided into two terms with clause for renewal. In either case, the lease is non-cancellable." 13. The aforesaid distinction has been again highlighted by the Supreme Court in Association of Leasing and Financial Service Companies versus Union of India, (2011) 2 SCC 352 with reference to service tax imposed under Section 65(12) and 65(105)(zn) by Finance Act, 2001, which underwent some changes by Finance Act, 2004 and 2007. Referring to the difference between the two agreements/transactions, the Supreme Court has held: "34. In this connection, a; and by way of illustration we need to give an illustration which bri…

Leasing and Financial Service Companies v. Union of India (2 SCC 352) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax