<?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 (7) TMI 1674 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364366</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand for service tax on rent received for leasing fit outs. The decision was based on the distinct nature of agreements for premises and fit outs, supported by legal precedents establishing the mutual exclusivity of service tax and VAT. The Tribunal also granted the Department&#039;s requested changes in the respondent&#039;s name post-G.S.T. implementation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 05:30:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1674 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364366</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand for service tax on rent received for leasing fit outs. The decision was based on the distinct nature of agreements for premises and fit outs, supported by legal precedents establishing the mutual exclusivity of service tax and VAT. The Tribunal also granted the Department&#039;s requested changes in the respondent&#039;s name post-G.S.T. implementation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>