Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT held that the agreements between the appellant (a builder/developer) and prospective buyers for construction of residential units are to be treated as works contracts, which were not taxable prior to 1.7.2010. Even if classified as "construction of complex" services, abatement would apply, making them composite works contracts. The demand of service tax is time-barred and not sustainable. The penalty on the appellant firm's partner u/s 78A is also not sustainable since the main demand is set aside. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
The CESTAT held that the agreements between the appellant (a builder/developer) and prospective buyers for construction of residential units are to be treated as works contracts, which were not taxable prior to 1.7.2010. Even if classified as "construction of complex" services, abatement would apply, making them composite works contracts. The demand of service tax is time-barred and not sustainable. The penalty on the appellant firm's partner u/s 78A is also not sustainable since the main demand is set aside. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
