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/s Lekheni Builders Versus Commissioner of Service Tax- Ahmedabad

2016 (9) TMI 845 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Demand alongwith interest and penalties - Real Estate Agent Service - development of the plots and carry out the jobs/functions summarised in the agreement - whether service charges received on the works referred to in the agreement, attract service tax under the category of construction services of residential complex service - Held that:- it is found that in the Alokik Township Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur-I [2014 (7) TMI 1017 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] involvi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T/202/2008 - Order No. A/10876 / 2016 - Dated:- 6-9-2016 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon ble Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. M. Saleem, Hon ble Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Amit Laddha, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri G. P. Thomas, Authorised Representative ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra This is an appeal filed against order-in-appeal No. 101/2008(STC)/ID/Commr.(A)/Ahd. dated 25.09.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Ahmedabad. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are 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

y of construction services of residential complex service involving service tax of ₹ 6,03,187/- for the period from October 2005 to March 2006. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equal amount under Section 78 and also penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 had been impsoed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate for the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icate issued by the society. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that in the Alokik Township Corporation s case (supra) involving similar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal taking into consideration the development work undertaken by the appellant therein observed that such development of plots would not fall within the scope of the construction of complex services. The Tribunal recorded its find .....

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