<?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 1530 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771258</link>
    <description>Preferential location charges were treated as part of a naturally bundled construction transaction because no separate consideration or independent service was proved, so the demand was unsustainable. Amounts collected for club construction and facilities were held to form part of construction value, not a separate club or association service, as no club existed during the relevant period. A differential demand under the Point of Taxation Rules could not survive after tax and interest had already been paid. Alleged unaccounted cash receipts based on loose papers failed for want of corroborative evidence, and the demand on cancelled bookings also fell once payment was acknowledged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 08:46:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=823875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1530 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771258</link>
      <description>Preferential location charges were treated as part of a naturally bundled construction transaction because no separate consideration or independent service was proved, so the demand was unsustainable. Amounts collected for club construction and facilities were held to form part of construction value, not a separate club or association service, as no club existed during the relevant period. A differential demand under the Point of Taxation Rules could not survive after tax and interest had already been paid. Alleged unaccounted cash receipts based on loose papers failed for want of corroborative evidence, and the demand on cancelled bookings also fell once payment was acknowledged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>