<?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 999 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439425</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s. Spencer International Hotels Ltd., stating that the agreement with M/s. IHCL was not for renting immovable property but for running the entire hotel business, including premises and facilities. The consideration based on annual sales indicated a profit-sharing arrangement, exempting it from service tax under &quot;Renting of Immovable Property Service.&quot; The demands, interest, and penalties for the specified periods were deemed unsustainable due to the profit-sharing nature of the agreement. The extended period for the show cause notice was found unjustified, leading to the demands being set aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2023 16:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=717504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 999 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439425</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s. Spencer International Hotels Ltd., stating that the agreement with M/s. IHCL was not for renting immovable property but for running the entire hotel business, including premises and facilities. The consideration based on annual sales indicated a profit-sharing arrangement, exempting it from service tax under &quot;Renting of Immovable Property Service.&quot; The demands, interest, and penalties for the specified periods were deemed unsustainable due to the profit-sharing nature of the agreement. The extended period for the show cause notice was found unjustified, leading to the demands being set aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>