<?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 (10) TMI 439 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399465</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Cooperative Housing Society, holding that the contributions from members for maintenance and common expenses were not liable for Service Tax. The Tribunal found that the society, as a body corporate under the Act of 1960, did not provide services to its members but collected contributions for specific purposes outlined in the bye-laws. Relying on the principle of mutuality and previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the activities of the society should not be considered taxable services. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order, and the Appellant received consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:06:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=624777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 439 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399465</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Cooperative Housing Society, holding that the contributions from members for maintenance and common expenses were not liable for Service Tax. The Tribunal found that the society, as a body corporate under the Act of 1960, did not provide services to its members but collected contributions for specific purposes outlined in the bye-laws. Relying on the principle of mutuality and previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the activities of the society should not be considered taxable services. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order, and the Appellant received consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>