Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Rent received by Individuals owning Property jointly cannot be clubbed to impose service tax

Bimal jain
Joint Property Rent Not Taxable as Combined Income; Individual Service Tax Thresholds Apply The CESTAT, Chennai ruled that rent received by individuals owning property jointly cannot be clubbed for imposing service tax. The case involved two co-owners who rented out a property and were issued a demand for service tax on their combined rental income. The tribunal found that the rental income received by each co-owner individually was below the threshold for service tax liability. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the previous orders demanding service tax, concluding that no service tax could be imposed on their individual rental incomes. The appeal was allowed, and the prior order was overturned. (AI Summary)

The CESTAT, Chennai in M. VIJAYABHARATHI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI  - 2023 (6) TMI 846 - CESTAT CHENNAI set aside the order levying service tax on total rent received by co-owners jointly and held that the income received as rent by each co-owner is much below the threshold limit to subject the levy of service tax thus, no service tax can be imposed.

Facts:

Mr. M. Vijayabharathi (“the Appellant”) jointly with Smt. Akila entered into an agreement with tenants of Ananda Towers for providing services of renting of immovable property during the period of 2007-08 onwards.

Upon investigation the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (“the Respondent”) found that the Appellant and Smt. Akila have not paid the service tax on the rental income received from the property. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice (“the SCN”) demanding service tax from both co-owners jointly. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand along with the interest and penalty from both the co-owners.

Aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. TCP-CEX & CUS-000-APP-067-14 dated August 21, 2014 (“the Impugned Oder”) upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority.

Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant filed the appeal before CESTAT, Chennai.

The Appellant contended that the CESTAT, Chennai in the case of A. AKILA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY COMMISSIONERATE TRICHY - 2018 (10) TMI 559 - CESTAT CHENNAI observed that the rental income received individually is within the threshold limit of levy of service tax thus, Smt. Akila is not required to pay service tax on the rental income.

Issue:

Whether the Co-owners of the property are liable to pay service tax on the rental income jointly?

Held:

The CESTAT, Chennai in M. VIJAYABHARATHI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI  - 2023 (6) TMI 846 - CESTAT CHENNAI  held as under:

  • Observed that CESTAT, Chennai in the case of Smt. Akila has set aside the demand by observing that income received as rent individually by co-owner is much below the threshold limit of levy of service tax.
  • Held that the rent received by the Appellant individually is much below the threshold limit of levy of service tax thus, no service tax can be imposed.
  • Allowed the Appeal and set aside the Impugned Order.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles