9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication has been filed for change of name from "M/s. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (I) Pvt. Ltd." to "AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited". The applicant has submitted 3 certificates of incorporation on change of name. The first one changes name from 'Scott Wilson Ltd.' to 'URS Scott Wilson Ltd.', the second one changes name from 'URS Scott Wilson Ltd.' to 'URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited' and the third one changes name from 'URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited' to 'AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited', the current name. In view of the certificates produced by the appellant, the change of name is allowed. The cause title of the appeal may be changed to 'AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited'. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r revision by the Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. He argued that the Commissioner has not gone into the material evidencing TDS deducted by the service recipient. The said order-in-revision has ignored the fact that no evidence has been produced by Revenue to establish that any TDS, if so deducted was deposited with the Income Tax Department by the service recipient. The said order-in-revision also does not report the findings of the original adjudicating authority that the value for services received by the appellant and that paid by the service recipient are identical and no separate TDS has been deducted and paid to the Income Tax Department. 4. Learned DR reiterated the findings in the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited in the SCN II, but also copies thereof furnished to the assessee. In the absence of the above, the SCN II is patently defective and infirm, in view of which, the proposals therein cannot be confirmed. 15. While conceding that the gross amount received by the assessee constitutes the taxable value of the impugned CER service in terms of Section 67 of the Act, it is alleged in the SCN II that the assessee have received the TDS element also from the service receiver. While the SCN II does not cite any evidence supporting the charge that the assessee did receive the TDS element of the value also, the IA paras claim that invoices reveal the above fact, without citing the details of the invoices which support the above charge or claim. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
