<?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 (11) TMI 39 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252722</link>
    <description>Leasing the entire sugar factory together with plant and machinery was treated as renting of immovable property, because the arrangement involved letting out the whole factory premises rather than merely providing isolated infrastructure support. The classification as Business Support Service was rejected on those facts, and the lower appellate authority&#039;s view was upheld, so the demand did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 15:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 39 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252722</link>
      <description>Leasing the entire sugar factory together with plant and machinery was treated as renting of immovable property, because the arrangement involved letting out the whole factory premises rather than merely providing isolated infrastructure support. The classification as Business Support Service was rejected on those facts, and the lower appellate authority&#039;s view was upheld, so the demand did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>