https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774279 CESTAT Chennai held that appellant's charges for ancillary services in software projects constituted Information Technology Software Service, not Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The tribunal found intellectual property development occurred, with client retaining ownership rights, placing services outside BAS scope. Revenue failed to discharge burden of proof regarding BAS classification and could not identify exact service nature. For 2006-07 demand, no service tax liability existed as services remained outside taxable scope until 16.05.2008 when IT software services were introduced. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. en-us Fri, 04 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774279 CESTAT Chennai held that appellant's charges for ancillary services in software projects constituted Information Technology Software Service, not Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The tribunal found intellectual property development occurred, with client retaining ownership rights, placing services outside BAS scope. Revenue failed to discharge burden of proof regarding BAS classification and could not identify exact service nature. For 2006-07 demand, no service tax liability existed as services remained outside taxable scope until 16.05.2008 when IT software services were introduced. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 04 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774279