Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2018 2018 2018 (2) Service Tax - 2018 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Service Tax - Case Laws

Showing 321 to 323 of 323 Records

• 2018 (2) TMI 19 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  CENVAT credit - allegation of the department is that M/s. BVIHR indulged in evasion of service tax by not paying the service tax to the department but issuing fake invoices to their customers - Held that: - there is no iota of evidence to show that the respondent is involved in any fraudulent availment of credit. In fact, the respondent had availed credit on the invoices distributed by their Head Office, M/s.Bata, Gurgaon - without seizure there can be no confiscation of the goods and when the goods are not confiscated, the penalty imposed cannot be justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 18 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Intellectual Property Service - The department was of the view that since the Intellectual Property Service came within the tax net with effect from 10.09.2004, the respondents were liable to pay service tax as a service recipient of the foreign company under the reverse charge mechanism - Held that: - an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-III Vs Denso Haryana Pvt. Ltd [2015 (11) TMI 235 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where the Tribunal has observed that the agreement was executed before 10.09.2004 and there cannot be any continuous supply of service so as to make the same taxable after 10.09.2004 - however, prior to 18.04.2006, the demand unsustainable as per decision laid down in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (2) TMI 17 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Liability to tax - whether maintenance or repair services and management consultancy service in respect of software development is liable to service tax or not during the period 09/07/2004 to 31/03/2006? - Held that: - before 01/06/2007, in the definition of maintenance and repairs, the goods did not include the software. Accordingly, the maintenance and repair of software was not considered as taxable before 01/06/2007 - as per the law prevailing at the relevant time maintenance and repair services of the software is not taxable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

1 ....1314151617