<?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>Car parking profit-sharing held exempt service, not space lease; revenue-sharing model qualifies as vehicle parking to public</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94325</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that the appellant&#039;s arrangement with M/s X Pvt. Ltd. for operating car parking facilities in the mall basement and additional parking area was a profit-sharing service contract and not a lease of space. The Tribunal noted that the entire parking revenue was first credited to the appellant&#039;s bank account and only thereafter was the operator&#039;s share remitted, evidencing revenue sharing rather than fixed rental. Accordingly, the activity qualified as &quot;services by way of vehicle parking to general public&quot; eligible for exemption under the applicable notification, and not as &quot;leasing of space for an entity for providing parking facility.&quot; Observing violation of judicial discipline by the lower authority, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:21 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Car parking profit-sharing held exempt service, not space lease; revenue-sharing model qualifies as vehicle parking to public</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94325</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that the appellant&#039;s arrangement with M/s X Pvt. Ltd. for operating car parking facilities in the mall basement and additional parking area was a profit-sharing service contract and not a lease of space. The Tribunal noted that the entire parking revenue was first credited to the appellant&#039;s bank account and only thereafter was the operator&#039;s share remitted, evidencing revenue sharing rather than fixed rental. Accordingly, the activity qualified as &quot;services by way of vehicle parking to general public&quot; eligible for exemption under the applicable notification, and not as &quot;leasing of space for an entity for providing parking facility.&quot; Observing violation of judicial discipline by the lower authority, CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:21 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>