<?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>Partner&#039;s 64% Iron Ore Share Ruled as Profit Distribution, Not Taxable Service Payment by CESTAT.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83938</link>
    <description>The appellant, being a partner in the partnership firm M/s. Sree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals, was entrusted with extracting iron ore from the leased mine. As a managing partner, the appellant received 64% of the extracted ore as a share of profit, while the other partners received 36%. The Revenue alleged that service tax was payable on the value of the 64% ore received by the appellant, classifying it as &quot;Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas Services.&quot; However, the CESTAT held that the appellant&#039;s receipt of 64% ore was merely a profit share as a partner and not consideration for rendering services. Relying on the Gujarat High Court&#039;s judgment in Cadilla Healthcare Ltd., the CESTAT ruled that a partner&#039;s profit share cannot be considered a consideration for services rendered to the partnership firm. Consequently, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 07:23:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 07:23:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=782506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Partner&#039;s 64% Iron Ore Share Ruled as Profit Distribution, Not Taxable Service Payment by CESTAT.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83938</link>
      <description>The appellant, being a partner in the partnership firm M/s. Sree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals, was entrusted with extracting iron ore from the leased mine. As a managing partner, the appellant received 64% of the extracted ore as a share of profit, while the other partners received 36%. The Revenue alleged that service tax was payable on the value of the 64% ore received by the appellant, classifying it as &quot;Mining of Mineral, Oil or Gas Services.&quot; However, the CESTAT held that the appellant&#039;s receipt of 64% ore was merely a profit share as a partner and not consideration for rendering services. Relying on the Gujarat High Court&#039;s judgment in Cadilla Healthcare Ltd., the CESTAT ruled that a partner&#039;s profit share cannot be considered a consideration for services rendered to the partnership firm. Consequently, the CESTAT set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 07:23:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>