<?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 (11) TMI 944 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781476</link>
    <description>Mere sharing of common expenses between group entities, without any real service element or outsourcing, was treated as a cost-to-cost reimbursement and not as taxable business support service. Reimbursable expenditure, including legal, recruitment and professional fees, was held not to form taxable consideration for the relevant pre-amendment period, and the later expansion of consideration to include reimbursables was not applied retrospectively. Extended limitation, interest and penalty were also found unsustainable because the relevant facts were already available in audit, suppression with intent to evade was not established, and the matter was revenue neutral. The impugned demand and consequential liabilities were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 944 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781476</link>
      <description>Mere sharing of common expenses between group entities, without any real service element or outsourcing, was treated as a cost-to-cost reimbursement and not as taxable business support service. Reimbursable expenditure, including legal, recruitment and professional fees, was held not to form taxable consideration for the relevant pre-amendment period, and the later expansion of consideration to include reimbursables was not applied retrospectively. Extended limitation, interest and penalty were also found unsustainable because the relevant facts were already available in audit, suppression with intent to evade was not established, and the matter was revenue neutral. The impugned demand and consequential liabilities were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>