Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the appellant to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) were composite services involving service elements as well as the element of sale of goods, classifiable as 'Works Contract Services' and not merely 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Services'. The appellant was entitled to avail the benefit of 67% abatement under the relevant notification. The demand of service tax on the service element was wrongly confirmed as the services provided to airports are exempted. The services provided to the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), a non-commercial government organization, were also held to be non-taxable. The show cause notice was held barred by limitation as there was no willful misstatement or suppression by the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming the service tax demand.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the appellant to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) were composite services involving service elements as well as the element of sale of goods, classifiable as 'Works Contract Services' and not merely 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Services'. The appellant was entitled to avail the benefit of 67% abatement under the relevant notification. The demand of service tax on the service element was wrongly confirmed as the services provided to airports are exempted. The services provided to the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), a non-commercial government organization, were also held to be non-taxable. The show cause notice was held barred by limitation as there was no willful misstatement or suppression by the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming the service tax demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.