<?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>2018 (1) TMI 760 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354024</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for Renting of Immovable Property Services, ruling that the services were provided individually by the owners&#039; daughters, not by the firm. The penalty for Mandap Keeper Services was also overturned as the firm believed their services were below the tax threshold. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the order to dismiss the demand for Renting of Immovable Property Services and the penalty for Mandap Keeper Services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 760 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354024</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the demand for Renting of Immovable Property Services, ruling that the services were provided individually by the owners&#039; daughters, not by the firm. The penalty for Mandap Keeper Services was also overturned as the firm believed their services were below the tax threshold. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the order to dismiss the demand for Renting of Immovable Property Services and the penalty for Mandap Keeper Services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>