Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesLand Sale Agreements Not Taxable as ‘Real Estate Agent’ Services: Supreme Court

Land Sale Agreements Not Taxable as ‘Real Estate Agent’ Services: Supreme Court

Indirect Taxes

Published on

By Mariya Paliwala
Land Sale Agreements Not Taxable as ‘Real Estate Agent’ Services: Supreme Court

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court has held that land sale transactions executed through Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) cannot be classified as taxable “real estate agent” services under the Finance Act, 1994, if they amount to outright transfer of property and not the rendering of any service. The bench of  Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here
Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GST

Missing Vehicle Details in E-Way Bill Cannot Alone Justify Rs. 17 Lakh GST Penalty: GSTAT

The GST Appellate Tribunal held that the department had not established an intention to...
GST

Missing Vehicle Details in E-Way Bill Can’t Alone Justify ₹2.04 Lakh GST Penalty: GSTAT

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Bengaluru Bench has set aside a ₹2,04,372 penalty after Part-B...
GST

Expired E-Way Bill Caused by Wrong PIN Code Can’t Justify GST Penalty Without Intent to Evade Tax: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Bengaluru, has set aside a penalty...
GST

Absence of 13 Tax Commissionerates in Reliance Jio Transfer Proceedings: GSTAT Directs Notice to CBIC Chairman

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has directed its Registry to inform...

More like this

GST

Missing Vehicle Details in E-Way Bill Cannot Alone Justify Rs. 17 Lakh GST Penalty: GSTAT

The GST Appellate Tribunal held that the department had not established an intention to...
GST

Missing Vehicle Details in E-Way Bill Can’t Alone Justify ₹2.04 Lakh GST Penalty: GSTAT

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Bengaluru Bench has set aside a ₹2,04,372 penalty after Part-B...
GST

Expired E-Way Bill Caused by Wrong PIN Code Can’t Justify GST Penalty Without Intent to Evade Tax: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Bengaluru, has set aside a penalty...