https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374635 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their leasing of computers and provision of IT assistants did not constitute 'Supply of Tangible Goods' for service tax purposes. It was found that the lessee had effective control and possession of the leased equipment, despite the appellant retaining ownership. As a result, the demand for service tax and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The tribunal also held that the extended period of limitation for raising the tax demand was not applicable due to the absence of suppression or willful misstatement by the appellant. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374635 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that their leasing of computers and provision of IT assistants did not constitute 'Supply of Tangible Goods' for service tax purposes. It was found that the lessee had effective control and possession of the leased equipment, despite the appellant retaining ownership. As a result, the demand for service tax and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The tribunal also held that the extended period of limitation for raising the tax demand was not applicable due to the absence of suppression or willful misstatement by the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 04 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374635