<?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>2017 (1) TMI 609 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337529</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi distinguished between charges collected by a developer in relation to real estate allotments. Administrative charges and restoration charges were treated as registration-related or default-related amounts, not consideration for a service in relation to sale, purchase, leasing, or renting of real estate, and were therefore held not taxable as Real Estate Agent Service. Transfer charges collected on change of allottee before execution of the sale deed were treated as consideration for facilitating transfer of booking rights and were held taxable. The demand was confined to the normal period, with cum-tax benefit to be considered, and penalties were directed to be reconsidered on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:24:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 609 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337529</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi distinguished between charges collected by a developer in relation to real estate allotments. Administrative charges and restoration charges were treated as registration-related or default-related amounts, not consideration for a service in relation to sale, purchase, leasing, or renting of real estate, and were therefore held not taxable as Real Estate Agent Service. Transfer charges collected on change of allottee before execution of the sale deed were treated as consideration for facilitating transfer of booking rights and were held taxable. The demand was confined to the normal period, with cum-tax benefit to be considered, and penalties were directed to be reconsidered on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>