<?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>2023 (6) TMI 307 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438733</link>
    <description>Royalty, concession fee or lease charges received under a port development BOT arrangement were analysed for taxability as support services of business or commerce under the Finance Act, 1994. The statutory concept of infrastructural support services covers facilities such as office utilities, reception, secretarial support, internet, telecom, pantry and security; the concession here did not involve any such service being rendered by the Port Department to the concessionaire. The payment was only consideration for rights granted under the development arrangement, not for taxable support services. The classification in the impugned order was therefore unsustainable, and the demand failed on merits in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2023 23:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=715866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 307 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438733</link>
      <description>Royalty, concession fee or lease charges received under a port development BOT arrangement were analysed for taxability as support services of business or commerce under the Finance Act, 1994. The statutory concept of infrastructural support services covers facilities such as office utilities, reception, secretarial support, internet, telecom, pantry and security; the concession here did not involve any such service being rendered by the Port Department to the concessionaire. The payment was only consideration for rights granted under the development arrangement, not for taxable support services. The classification in the impugned order was therefore unsustainable, and the demand failed on merits in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>