https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772406 CESTAT Chennai dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant provided taxable service of renting immovable property by leasing 22.68 acres of vacant land. The tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that it was a revenue sharing arrangement, finding that the additional lease amount of 75% of receipts retained its character as rent. The service fell under renting of immovable property under Section 66E(a) and was not covered by the negative list. Extended period of limitation was correctly invoked due to willful suppression of additional lease amounts. Penalties under Sections 76, 77(2), and 78 were upheld as the appellant, being a registered assessee, could not claim ignorance of law regarding service tax obligations. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jun 2025 08:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772406 CESTAT Chennai dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant provided taxable service of renting immovable property by leasing 22.68 acres of vacant land. The tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that it was a revenue sharing arrangement, finding that the additional lease amount of 75% of receipts retained its character as rent. The service fell under renting of immovable property under Section 66E(a) and was not covered by the negative list. Extended period of limitation was correctly invoked due to willful suppression of additional lease amounts. Penalties under Sections 76, 77(2), and 78 were upheld as the appellant, being a registered assessee, could not claim ignorance of law regarding service tax obligations. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772406