Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/ Bairathi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Jaipur

2016 (3) TMI 715 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of Service tax for the period 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 - Construction of complex service - Failure to pay tax liability in respect of 50% of the constructed property assigned to the owners of the land in terms of the Joint Development agreement - Held that:- Department's contention that CBEC Circular dated 29/1/2009 not applicable to appellant's case is not accepted. The main point of clarification by the CBEC is on the implication of “agreement to sale” and provisions of Transfer of Proper .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- Final Order No. 51003/2016 - Dated:- 4-3-2016 - SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN :- This appeal is against order dated 15/10/2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The appellants are registered with the Department for providing construction service. Proceedings were initiated against them for non-payme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iated against the appellant resulted in the order-in-original dated 14/12/2009 confirming demand of ₹ 5,17,134/- and imposing equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further penalty was also imposed under Section 76 of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order rejected the appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us in appeal. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that CBEC vide Circular dated 29/1/2009 clarified that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

decisions of the Tribunal and Hon ble High Courts in support of their claim. 3. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower Authorities. 4. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. We find that service tax demand against the appellant has been confirmed on the ground that they have failed to pay their tax liability in respect of 50% of the constructed property assigned to the owners of the land in terms of the Joint Development agreement. It was alleged that this sha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version