Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2019 (2) TMI 84 - AT - Service Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Ruling: Services as Works Contracts Pre-2007, Taxable Post-2007. Residential Complex Service Demand Dismissed. The Tribunal ruled that the services provided were composite works contracts not liable for service tax before 1.6.2007 and taxable only under 'Works ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Ruling: Services as Works Contracts Pre-2007, Taxable Post-2007. Residential Complex Service Demand Dismissed.

                            The Tribunal ruled that the services provided were composite works contracts not liable for service tax before 1.6.2007 and taxable only under "Works Contract Service" post that date. The demand under "Construction of Residential Complex Service" was deemed unsustainable, following precedents. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the demand.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Taxable value determination for landowner's portion.
                            2. Classification of services under composite works contract.
                            3. Applicability of service tax prior to and post 1.6.2007.
                            4. Appropriateness of demand under "Construction of Residential Complex Service."

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Taxable Value Determination for Landowner's Portion:
                            The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to account for the true value of the services provided to the landowner, arguing that the assessment was inconsistent with Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The appellant argued that the amount was calculated without deducting the UDS portion for each project. The Tribunal found that the issue was already settled in a previous case (M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd.) where it was ruled that the construction activities were composite works contracts, thus not liable for service tax prior to 1.6.2007 and only under "Works Contract Service" post 1.6.2007.

                            2. Classification of Services Under Composite Works Contract:
                            The Tribunal reiterated that the construction activities involved both material supply and value services, classifying them as composite works contracts. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Larsen & Toubro, it was established that such contracts could not be classified under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" or "Construction of Complex Service" unless they were services simpliciter. The Tribunal emphasized that composite works contracts should be taxed under "Works Contract Service" as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzza).

                            3. Applicability of Service Tax Prior to and Post 1.6.2007:
                            The Tribunal confirmed that prior to 1.6.2007, composite works contracts were not liable for service tax. Post 1.6.2007, these contracts could only be taxed under "Works Contract Service." The Tribunal supported this with references to the Union Finance Minister’s budget speech in 2007 and the Supreme Court judgment in Larsen & Toubro, which clarified that composite contracts were brought under service tax ambit only from 1.6.2007.

                            4. Appropriateness of Demand Under "Construction of Residential Complex Service":
                            The Tribunal reviewed the lower authorities' findings and the appellant's arguments, concluding that the demand under "Construction of Residential Complex Service" was not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on multiple precedents, including decisions in cases like Commissioner, Service Tax, New Delhi Vs. Swadeshi Construction Company and Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, which consistently held that composite works contracts could not be taxed under categories meant for services simpliciter.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal set aside the demand, ruling that the services provided by the appellant were composite works contracts and could not be taxed under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" or "Construction of Complex Service." The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and allowed the assessee’s appeal, stating that the demand was not sustainable.

                            Result:
                            (i) Department Appeal (ST/250/2012) dismissed.
                            (ii) Assessee’s appeal (ST/274/2012) allowed.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found