<?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>2016 (4) TMI 937 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326823</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Service Tax liability and interest on renting out premises, emphasizing that non-payment of tax on immovable property attracts interest. However, the penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, were set aside since the appellant had discharged the Service Tax liability and interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 12:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 937 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326823</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Service Tax liability and interest on renting out premises, emphasizing that non-payment of tax on immovable property attracts interest. However, the penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, were set aside since the appellant had discharged the Service Tax liability and interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>