<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (1) TMI 703 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270911</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants regarding their service tax liability for various taxable services, including construction activities. The Commissioner&#039;s demand for payment and penalties were partially upheld, with the applicants not found liable for service tax on the construction of independent houses based on precedent. Liability for contracts before 01/06/2007 and specific missions was also questioned. However, the claim of pure supply of goods contracts and construction of godowns was not supported. The Tribunal ordered a further deposit to stay recovery of the remaining tax liability and penalties until the appeal&#039;s resolution. Compliance was required within six weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:53:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 703 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270911</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants regarding their service tax liability for various taxable services, including construction activities. The Commissioner&#039;s demand for payment and penalties were partially upheld, with the applicants not found liable for service tax on the construction of independent houses based on precedent. Liability for contracts before 01/06/2007 and specific missions was also questioned. However, the claim of pure supply of goods contracts and construction of godowns was not supported. The Tribunal ordered a further deposit to stay recovery of the remaining tax liability and penalties until the appeal&#039;s resolution. Compliance was required within six weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>