Skip to main content

Mumbai housing societies spared service tax

Housing societies do not have to pay service tax on maintenance charges collected from their members, a tax tribunal has ruled.

This will reduce the maintenance outgo of residents of nearly a lakh housing societies in Mumbai and Thane, particularly the upscale ones where the charges can go over Rs 1 lakh every month.

The recent decision by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) came in a case involving Tahnee Heights, a residential housing society on Nepean Sea Road, and Mittal Tower at Nariman Point that houses several offices.

The decision means a flat-owner or owner of a commercial premise in a housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act will have to pay much less. The society will not be required to impose a service tax charge (currently 12.36%) against maintenance charges collected from its members.

Typically in any housing society in Mumbai, the resident welfare association (RWA) formed from among members of the society caters to the administrative needs of the society. Maintenance charges are collected for purposes like water charges, electricity for common areas (lifts, stairways, lobbies), security, lift maintenance or repairs, and maintenance of common areas. Most of these charges that are collected are in the nature of reimbursement.

In some cases, the RWA enters into contracts with external service providers, say for regular lift maintenance or for providing service guards. These agencies charge service tax on their fees, which is paid by the RWA.

However, service tax authorities insisted housing societies pay up on the charges collected from its members. In tony areas or in luxury housing societies with a club house, gym or swimming pool, monthly maintenance charges can be steep, even running to more than Rs 1 lakh per flat. The service tax authorities contended the RWAs are providing taxable "club or association services".

In the case, Tahnee Heights, which collected charges for maintenance, repairs and beautification, and Mittal Tower that raised expenses from its members towards water and security charges and repairs, paid service tax on the department's "persuasion". Later they filed refund claims, which were rejected. Consequently appeals were filed with the CESTAT.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Mumbai-housing-societies-spared-service-tax/articleshow/45876822.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more