https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446994 CESTAT Mumbai held that one-time premium received by appellant for sub-leasing MIDC industrial lands cannot be classified as rent under renting of immovable property service. The tribunal distinguished between rent for continued occupation and premium for lease transfer, ruling that premium paid for obtaining lease and infrastructural facilities does not constitute consideration for letting out property. Following precedent from Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority case, service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) cannot be charged on premium amounts. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. en-us Fri, 01 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2023 09:56:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446994 CESTAT Mumbai held that one-time premium received by appellant for sub-leasing MIDC industrial lands cannot be classified as rent under renting of immovable property service. The tribunal distinguished between rent for continued occupation and premium for lease transfer, ruling that premium paid for obtaining lease and infrastructural facilities does not constitute consideration for letting out property. Following precedent from Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority case, service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) cannot be charged on premium amounts. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 01 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446994