Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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 builder is not liable to pay service tax on receipt of entire consideration from the buyer after issuance of 'occupancy certificate' by the Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation, as it falls under the exception provided in Section 66E(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The term 'completion certificate' used in the exception includes 'occupancy certificate' issued by the competent municipal authority. The Ministry of Finance clarification dated 26.10.2015 is applicable to all municipal corporations, not limited to BMC. After receiving the occupancy certificate and selling the flats, the builder is not providing declared construction services to the buyers. Hence, the respondent was rightly not liable for service tax on sale of flats where consideration was received after issuance of occupancy certificate. Appeal dismissed.
The CESTAT held that the builder is not liable to pay service tax on receipt of entire consideration from the buyer after issuance of 'occupancy certificate' by the Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation, as it falls under the exception provided in Section 66E(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The term 'completion certificate' used in the exception includes 'occupancy certificate' issued by the competent municipal authority. The Ministry of Finance clarification dated 26.10.2015 is applicable to all municipal corporations, not limited to BMC. After receiving the occupancy certificate and selling the flats, the builder is not providing declared construction services to the buyers. Hence, the respondent was rightly not liable for service tax on sale of flats where consideration was received after issuance of occupancy certificate. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
