<?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 1134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770862</link>
    <description>CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding service tax refund on conversion charges paid to RIICO for changing land use from industrial to commercial. The tribunal held that Section 104 of Finance Act, 1994 exempts one-time upfront amounts for long-term leases exceeding 30 years from service tax liability during June 2007 to September 2016. The respondent&#039;s refund claim filed in May 2015 was within limitation and valid. The tribunal found no service was provided by RIICO as it merely granted approval for land use change. Unjust enrichment principles were satisfied as the respondent bore the tax burden without passing it to others, evidenced by chartered accountant certificate and balance sheet entries showing amount as recoverable from government.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770862</link>
      <description>CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding service tax refund on conversion charges paid to RIICO for changing land use from industrial to commercial. The tribunal held that Section 104 of Finance Act, 1994 exempts one-time upfront amounts for long-term leases exceeding 30 years from service tax liability during June 2007 to September 2016. The respondent&#039;s refund claim filed in May 2015 was within limitation and valid. The tribunal found no service was provided by RIICO as it merely granted approval for land use change. Unjust enrichment principles were satisfied as the respondent bore the tax burden without passing it to others, evidenced by chartered accountant certificate and balance sheet entries showing amount as recoverable from government.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>