https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781729 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, holding that one-time lease premium/salami for transfer of leasehold rights and amounts collected for car parking were not taxable as "Renting of Immovable Property" and setting aside related demands. It further held that expenses booked as sponsorship were in fact advertisement and not liable under sponsorship service, and that amounts collected for transformer/DG set related works were recovered as a pure agent and not taxable. Service tax already paid on sundry debtors could not be demanded again, though interest under Section 75 was payable on delayed payment. Miscellaneous confirmed liabilities remained undisturbed. The extended limitation under Section 73(1) was held inapplicable. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781729 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, holding that one-time lease premium/salami for transfer of leasehold rights and amounts collected for car parking were not taxable as "Renting of Immovable Property" and setting aside related demands. It further held that expenses booked as sponsorship were in fact advertisement and not liable under sponsorship service, and that amounts collected for transformer/DG set related works were recovered as a pure agent and not taxable. Service tax already paid on sundry debtors could not be demanded again, though interest under Section 75 was payable on delayed payment. Miscellaneous confirmed liabilities remained undisturbed. The extended limitation under Section 73(1) was held inapplicable. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781729