Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that under a revenue-sharing agreement the appellant (A) did not lease the immovable premises but procured management services from the operator (B); the consideration received was not fixed rent but variable receipts linked to box-office revenue, and thus did not constitute renting of immovable property. Consequently A was the service recipient, not the service provider, and any service tax liability would lie on B. The Tribunal further found prior precedential authority dispositive and concluded the show-cause notices were without merit as applied, extinguishing the recovery, interest and penalty directed by the adjudicating authority.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that under a revenue-sharing agreement the appellant (A) did not lease the immovable premises but procured management services from the operator (B); the consideration received was not fixed rent but variable receipts linked to box-office revenue, and thus did not constitute renting of immovable property. Consequently A was the service recipient, not the service provider, and any service tax liability would lie on B. The Tribunal further found prior precedential authority dispositive and concluded the show-cause notices were without merit as applied, extinguishing the recovery, interest and penalty directed by the adjudicating authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
