<?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>2020 (1) TMI 426 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390813</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a co-owner of a jointly rented property, stating that they were not liable to pay service tax as their individual rent receipts remained below the exemption limit specified in Notification No. 06/2005-S.T. The decision emphasized the need for separate tax liability assessment for co-owners and the application of exemptions based on individual rental income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 426 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390813</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a co-owner of a jointly rented property, stating that they were not liable to pay service tax as their individual rent receipts remained below the exemption limit specified in Notification No. 06/2005-S.T. The decision emphasized the need for separate tax liability assessment for co-owners and the application of exemptions based on individual rental income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>