<?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 (10) TMI 681 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779885</link>
    <description>CESTAT CHENNAI - AT allowed the appeal, holding that maintenance/amenity charges reimbursed to the service provider are not includible in the taxable value of renting of immovable property services. The tribunal followed the binding SC precedent and found the appellant had already discharged tax on rent; reimbursement charges are not taxable. Consequently, the penalties imposed were held untenable and set aside, and the impugned order was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 681 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779885</link>
      <description>CESTAT CHENNAI - AT allowed the appeal, holding that maintenance/amenity charges reimbursed to the service provider are not includible in the taxable value of renting of immovable property services. The tribunal followed the binding SC precedent and found the appellant had already discharged tax on rent; reimbursement charges are not taxable. Consequently, the penalties imposed were held untenable and set aside, and the impugned order was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>