https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94046 The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that under a revenue-sharing agreement the appellant (A) did not lease the immovable premises but procured management services from the operator (B); the consideration received was not fixed rent but variable receipts linked to box-office revenue, and thus did not constitute renting of immovable property. Consequently A was the service recipient, not the service provider, and any service tax liability would lie on B. The Tribunal further found prior precedential authority dispositive and concluded the show-cause notices were without merit as applied, extinguishing the recovery, interest and penalty directed by the adjudicating authority. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:19 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94046 The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that under a revenue-sharing agreement the appellant (A) did not lease the immovable premises but procured management services from the operator (B); the consideration received was not fixed rent but variable receipts linked to box-office revenue, and thus did not constitute renting of immovable property. Consequently A was the service recipient, not the service provider, and any service tax liability would lie on B. The Tribunal further found prior precedential authority dispositive and concluded the show-cause notices were without merit as applied, extinguishing the recovery, interest and penalty directed by the adjudicating authority. Highlights Service Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:19 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94046