<?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 (9) TMI 823 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798797</link>
    <description>Residential construction by builders before 1 July 2010 was not taxable merely because purchaser consideration was received before completion, as the relevant deeming provision did not apply retrospectively. Buildings or independently identifiable projects with twelve or fewer units fell outside the residential-complex definition, and the works-contract category could not expand that scope. Separate agreements for completion of flats intended for purchasers&#039; personal residential use qualified for the personal-use exclusion. A separate levy on landowners&#039; allotted flats was impermissible where development-rights value was already included in the developer&#039;s taxed value. Residual taxable receipts qualified for prescribed abatement and cum-tax valuation, while interpretational disputes without fraud or deliberate suppression did not justify extended limitation or penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:41:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=922569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 823 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798797</link>
      <description>Residential construction by builders before 1 July 2010 was not taxable merely because purchaser consideration was received before completion, as the relevant deeming provision did not apply retrospectively. Buildings or independently identifiable projects with twelve or fewer units fell outside the residential-complex definition, and the works-contract category could not expand that scope. Separate agreements for completion of flats intended for purchasers&#039; personal residential use qualified for the personal-use exclusion. A separate levy on landowners&#039; allotted flats was impermissible where development-rights value was already included in the developer&#039;s taxed value. Residual taxable receipts qualified for prescribed abatement and cum-tax valuation, while interpretational disputes without fraud or deliberate suppression did not justify extended limitation or penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>