<?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>2017 (12) TMI 1146 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352877</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that services provided by M/s. Hiranandani Developers Pvt Ltd to their group companies were liable for service tax under Business Auxiliary Service. The tribunal confirmed a significant demand, directing a reconsideration of fitness services taxation. Emphasizing the need to establish the relationship between service provider and recipient in group company scenarios, the tribunal remanded the matter for further examination. The tribunal ruled in favor of the developer regarding the collection of maintenance charges, concluding they were not liable for service tax. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision based on detailed examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Dec 2017 09:07:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1146 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352877</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that services provided by M/s. Hiranandani Developers Pvt Ltd to their group companies were liable for service tax under Business Auxiliary Service. The tribunal confirmed a significant demand, directing a reconsideration of fitness services taxation. Emphasizing the need to establish the relationship between service provider and recipient in group company scenarios, the tribunal remanded the matter for further examination. The tribunal ruled in favor of the developer regarding the collection of maintenance charges, concluding they were not liable for service tax. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision based on detailed examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>