https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=887 The applicant did not qualify as a wholly owned subsidiary Indian company under Section 96A(b) of the Service Tax Act as the foreign holding company did not hold 99% shares. Additionally, the construction work had already commenced when the application was filed, making it ineligible for an advance ruling. The application was rejected based on these grounds, emphasizing the necessity to meet the defined criteria and the timing of the service for seeking advance rulings under the Service Tax Act. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=887 The applicant did not qualify as a wholly owned subsidiary Indian company under Section 96A(b) of the Service Tax Act as the foreign holding company did not hold 99% shares. Additionally, the construction work had already commenced when the application was filed, making it ineligible for an advance ruling. The application was rejected based on these grounds, emphasizing the necessity to meet the defined criteria and the timing of the service for seeking advance rulings under the Service Tax Act. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=887