<?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 (2) TMI 1216 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462906</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, holding that receipts from BCCI for hosting cricket matches constitute reimbursement and do not amount to taxable Event Management Services, as the appellant&#039;s role was limited to supporting BCCI&#039;s business rather than managing events. Amounts received as miscellaneous receipts, sponsorship fees, and membership fees were held not taxable under Club or Association Services, following SC precedent exempting incorporated clubs or associations prior to July 2012. The extended period of limitation was also rejected due to lack of suppression of facts. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on both merits and limitation grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 12:14:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1216 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462906</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, holding that receipts from BCCI for hosting cricket matches constitute reimbursement and do not amount to taxable Event Management Services, as the appellant&#039;s role was limited to supporting BCCI&#039;s business rather than managing events. Amounts received as miscellaneous receipts, sponsorship fees, and membership fees were held not taxable under Club or Association Services, following SC precedent exempting incorporated clubs or associations prior to July 2012. The extended period of limitation was also rejected due to lack of suppression of facts. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on both merits and limitation grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>