<?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 499 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253182</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled that no service tax is payable on the security deposit, but the rent received should be treated as the value of taxable service, and service tax is payable separately on the rent amount. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of dropping the penalty under Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, and no penalty was leviable on the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 499 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253182</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled that no service tax is payable on the security deposit, but the rent received should be treated as the value of taxable service, and service tax is payable separately on the rent amount. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of dropping the penalty under Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, and no penalty was leviable on the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>