https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233751 The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming that the definition of 'Consulting Engineer' under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period 1997-2001 did not include a private limited company like the respondent. The court clarified that during that period, the term 'engineering firm' did not encompass 'any body corporate,' and the definition of 'consulting engineer' did not extend to companies. The court's decision was based on the specific wording of the law and previous judicial interpretations, concluding that no substantial legal question arose for consideration in this context. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233751 The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming that the definition of 'Consulting Engineer' under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period 1997-2001 did not include a private limited company like the respondent. The court clarified that during that period, the term 'engineering firm' did not encompass 'any body corporate,' and the definition of 'consulting engineer' did not extend to companies. The court's decision was based on the specific wording of the law and previous judicial interpretations, concluding that no substantial legal question arose for consideration in this context. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233751