<?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 (2) TMI 495 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374868</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand for service tax and interest. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegation that the appellants collected the amount from the flat purchaser after they had exited the partnership firm. The tribunal emphasized that the payment was made to the remaining partner of the firm, not to the appellants, rendering the demand unjustified and without legal merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=557363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 495 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374868</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand for service tax and interest. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegation that the appellants collected the amount from the flat purchaser after they had exited the partnership firm. The tribunal emphasized that the payment was made to the remaining partner of the firm, not to the appellants, rendering the demand unjustified and without legal merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>