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" ?
CESTAT ruled that Delayed Payment Charges (DPC) received by the appellant stockbroker from clients are not includible in the taxable value for service tax purposes. The Tribunal determined that DPCs constitute penal charges for delayed payments rather than consideration for providing a separate service. Applying principles established in Bhayana Builders and other precedents, CESTAT emphasized that "consideration" under Section 67 of the Finance Act must flow from the service recipient to the service provider as payment for services rendered. The Tribunal noted that Circular 137/25/2011 specifically clarifies that DPCs are not chargeable to service tax as they represent penalties rather than service fees. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT ruled that Delayed Payment Charges (DPC) received by the appellant stockbroker from clients are not includible in the taxable value for service tax purposes. The Tribunal determined that DPCs constitute penal charges for delayed payments rather than consideration for providing a separate service. Applying principles established in Bhayana Builders and other precedents, CESTAT emphasized that "consideration" under Section 67 of the Finance Act must flow from the service recipient to the service provider as payment for services rendered. The Tribunal noted that Circular 137/25/2011 specifically clarifies that DPCs are not chargeable to service tax as they represent penalties rather than service fees. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
