<?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 (10) TMI 401 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368435</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that individual co-owners should not be treated as an association of persons for service tax liability. It held that collecting service tax from one co-owner based on total rent received by all co-owners separately is not supported by law. The Tribunal also found that the rent received by each individual co-owner was below the threshold limit for service tax liability, citing previous decisions in favor of assessees. Additionally, the indivisibility of the property did not affect the levy of service tax, as tax is based on the service provided, not physical ownership. The impugned order was set aside in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 07:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 401 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368435</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that individual co-owners should not be treated as an association of persons for service tax liability. It held that collecting service tax from one co-owner based on total rent received by all co-owners separately is not supported by law. The Tribunal also found that the rent received by each individual co-owner was below the threshold limit for service tax liability, citing previous decisions in favor of assessees. Additionally, the indivisibility of the property did not affect the levy of service tax, as tax is based on the service provided, not physical ownership. The impugned order was set aside in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>