<?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 (9) TMI 461 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251435</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that notional interest on interest-free security deposits cannot be added to lease rentals for service tax purposes. It also ruled that the extended period for demand and penalties does not apply in cases involving interpretative issues. The appeals were allowed, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 461 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251435</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that notional interest on interest-free security deposits cannot be added to lease rentals for service tax purposes. It also ruled that the extended period for demand and penalties does not apply in cases involving interpretative issues. The appeals were allowed, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>