Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Ahlcons India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi

2017 (12) TMI 386 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Non-payment of service tax - consideration received on mobilization advance - rendering of construction service as sub-contractor - Held that: - The mobilization advance is liable to be service tax, as the provisions of Section 67 are clear to the effect that any money received for the taxable service to be provided is to be taxed at the time of receipt itself. The appellants, though claimed to have discharged the service tax later, subject to verification of the same, the liability for the inte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- matter on remand. - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeals No.60283 and 60288/2013 - ST/A/57527-57528/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 6-10-2017 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri S.K. Sarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran These two appeals are on identical set of facts and hence are taken up for final disposal. The appellants are engaged in the const .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

actor already paid the service tax on the whole value. The Lower Authority confirmed the service tax liabilities and imposed penalties also. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the mobilization advances were received and were later adjusted in the running account and full service tax liability has been paid when the adjustments were made towards the advance, later. As such, they have not short paid any service tax. Regarding the service tax liability for the work executed as sub-con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bro Ltd. - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC), the ld. Counsel submitted that there could be no tax liability on the appellant for the period prior to 1.6.2007. 3. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the Lower Authority did not have benefit of ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). Further, regarding the tax liability on mobilization advance, he submitted that in terms of Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994, any amount received for taxable services to be provided is 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

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version