Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
