<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (8) TMI 710 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250760</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that leasing out factory premises by a manufacturer of flexible laminates did not constitute &quot;Banking and Financial Services&quot; under the Finance Act. The lease agreements were deemed to be rent agreements for immovable property rather than financial leases, as they did not meet the criteria outlined in the Act. The department&#039;s service tax demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2015 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 710 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250760</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that leasing out factory premises by a manufacturer of flexible laminates did not constitute &quot;Banking and Financial Services&quot; under the Finance Act. The lease agreements were deemed to be rent agreements for immovable property rather than financial leases, as they did not meet the criteria outlined in the Act. The department&#039;s service tax demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>