<?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>2018 (11) TMI 1472 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371129</link>
    <description>Amounts received under memoranda of understanding for identification, verification, procurement and transfer of land were held not to constitute consideration for taxable real estate agent service under the Finance Act, 1994, because the arrangement was on a principal-to-principal basis and the remuneration was an indeterminate margin rather than a quantified fee for a specific service. The extended period of limitation was also found unsustainable, since the transaction was disclosed in the books and the dispute depended on interpretation, with no established suppression or intent to evade tax. On that basis, the demand for service tax, interest and penalties was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1472 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371129</link>
      <description>Amounts received under memoranda of understanding for identification, verification, procurement and transfer of land were held not to constitute consideration for taxable real estate agent service under the Finance Act, 1994, because the arrangement was on a principal-to-principal basis and the remuneration was an indeterminate margin rather than a quantified fee for a specific service. The extended period of limitation was also found unsustainable, since the transaction was disclosed in the books and the dispute depended on interpretation, with no established suppression or intent to evade tax. On that basis, the demand for service tax, interest and penalties was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>