<?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>2025 (5) TMI 1020 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770748</link>
    <description>Tribunal ruled in favor of appellant on multiple service tax issues. Key holdings include: service tax on professional fees was correctly discharged on reverse charge basis, rental income from residential property is exempt, and tax authorities cannot confirm demands exceeding show cause notice amounts. The appeal was allowed, with demands dropped due to procedural and substantive legal deficiencies in the department&#039;s approach.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822160" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1020 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770748</link>
      <description>Tribunal ruled in favor of appellant on multiple service tax issues. Key holdings include: service tax on professional fees was correctly discharged on reverse charge basis, rental income from residential property is exempt, and tax authorities cannot confirm demands exceeding show cause notice amounts. The appeal was allowed, with demands dropped due to procedural and substantive legal deficiencies in the department&#039;s approach.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>