9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by them from the partnership firm. In that circumstance, on merits itself, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax. There are no merit in the impugned orders - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20039-20040/2022 - Final Order No. 20090-20091/2022 - Dated:- 4-3-2022 - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. C. J. MATHEW, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate (LUMIERE LAW PARTNERS ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS) for the Appellant. Mrs. C.V. Savitha, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent. ORDER Both the appeals are having common issue, therefore, they are taken up together and decided by common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice against the said partner. He further submits that in another partner of the same partnership firm, in the case of Shri Nambiseshan Balaji, the Deputy Commissioner, Anna Nagar Division, Chennai has also dropped the show-cause notice vide Order-in-Original No.5/2022 dated 27.1.2022. He also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon ble apex court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. R. M. Chidambaram Pillai and Others reported in (1997) 4 SCC 766 to say that any renumeration received by a partner of a partnership firm is not a service i.e., only a share in the profit of the partnership firm. Therefore, he prays that impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as under:- 3. I say that on the basis of information retrieved from the Income Tax Department, a show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner Shri Amrish Rameshchandra Shah by Deputy Commissioner, Division-X, CGST CX, CGST, Mumbai South vide F. No. CGST/MS/Dn-X/R-1/ITR-TDS/UR/345/2020-21 dated 30.12.2020 for ₹ 32,60,835/- for the period October, 2014 to June, 2017. 4. I say that on the basis of verification, the activities undertaken by the Petitioner are Ernst and Young LLP SRBC and Associates LLP as a partner (profit sharing) or salaried individual are not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. To this extent, the show-cause notice may be withdrawn. 5. However, the income from other sources require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
