<?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>2019 (1) TMI 771 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373606</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Order-in-Appeal. It held that maintenance charges for common areas of a business premises taken on rent qualified as eligible input services under the relevant definition. The Tribunal found that the maintenance charges were indirectly related to the business and essential for its proper functioning, falling within the definition of input services. As a result, no penalty was imposed, and there was no intention of tax evasion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2019 07:43:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=553311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 771 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373606</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Order-in-Appeal. It held that maintenance charges for common areas of a business premises taken on rent qualified as eligible input services under the relevant definition. The Tribunal found that the maintenance charges were indirectly related to the business and essential for its proper functioning, falling within the definition of input services. As a result, no penalty was imposed, and there was no intention of tax evasion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373606</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>