<?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 (6) TMI 1432 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773319</link>
    <description>Service tax on renting of immovable property is recoverable from the person who actually lets out the premises and receives the rent. Where lease deeds, receipts, affidavits and PAN records showed the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees as lessor and rent recipient, the Board could not be treated as the service provider, so the tax demand was unsustainable. The extended limitation period also could not be invoked because the record did not establish suppression of facts or intent to evade tax, and the notice proceeded on an incorrect assumption about who earned the rent. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and the assessee obtained consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 13:00:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1432 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773319</link>
      <description>Service tax on renting of immovable property is recoverable from the person who actually lets out the premises and receives the rent. Where lease deeds, receipts, affidavits and PAN records showed the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees as lessor and rent recipient, the Board could not be treated as the service provider, so the tax demand was unsustainable. The extended limitation period also could not be invoked because the record did not establish suppression of facts or intent to evade tax, and the notice proceeded on an incorrect assumption about who earned the rent. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and the assessee obtained consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>