https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777368 CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that an interest-free deposit refundable to the lessee did not constitute consideration for renting of immovable property service for the period before 1-7-2010. The Tribunal found the first appellate authority erred by treating the refundable deposit as taxable consideration and by relying on a subsequent amendment and CBEC clarifications; the activity of giving vacant land on licence/lease for later construction became taxable only w.e.f. 1-7-2010. en-us Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:56:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777368 CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that an interest-free deposit refundable to the lessee did not constitute consideration for renting of immovable property service for the period before 1-7-2010. The Tribunal found the first appellate authority erred by treating the refundable deposit as taxable consideration and by relying on a subsequent amendment and CBEC clarifications; the activity of giving vacant land on licence/lease for later construction became taxable only w.e.f. 1-7-2010. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777368