<?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>2026 (4) TMI 863 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789794</link>
    <description>Service tax was not leviable on composite construction of residential complexes for 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 where the activity was a works contract, because the works contract levy commenced only from 01.06.2007 and the service element could not be vivisected before that date. The Tribunal also treated the construction of residential complexes as non-taxable on the facts recorded, including the pre-completion and transfer stage. Separate consideration received for leasing fit-outs, furniture and other movable items under distinct agreements was also held outside renting of immovable property, since those items were movable property and VAT had been paid on the same consideration. The demands and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:04:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 863 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789794</link>
      <description>Service tax was not leviable on composite construction of residential complexes for 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 where the activity was a works contract, because the works contract levy commenced only from 01.06.2007 and the service element could not be vivisected before that date. The Tribunal also treated the construction of residential complexes as non-taxable on the facts recorded, including the pre-completion and transfer stage. Separate consideration received for leasing fit-outs, furniture and other movable items under distinct agreements was also held outside renting of immovable property, since those items were movable property and VAT had been paid on the same consideration. The demands and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>