<?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 (7) TMI 1709 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775641</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Kolkata held that the appellant, engaged in a joint venture with NNC, did not provide taxable business support or manpower recruitment services, as reimbursements were under the joint venture agreement and not service charges. The demand for Service Tax on renting immovable property was rejected since the appellant&#039;s arrangement with food vendors was revenue-sharing, not rental, and no amounts were recovered from employees for concessions. A minor outstanding amount of Rs. 31,999/- related to works contract service was admitted by the appellant and directed to be paid with interest. Penalties imposed were set aside as no penalty was warranted. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:30:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1709 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775641</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Kolkata held that the appellant, engaged in a joint venture with NNC, did not provide taxable business support or manpower recruitment services, as reimbursements were under the joint venture agreement and not service charges. The demand for Service Tax on renting immovable property was rejected since the appellant&#039;s arrangement with food vendors was revenue-sharing, not rental, and no amounts were recovered from employees for concessions. A minor outstanding amount of Rs. 31,999/- related to works contract service was admitted by the appellant and directed to be paid with interest. Penalties imposed were set aside as no penalty was warranted. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>