<?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>2024 (3) TMI 1513 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465424</link>
    <description>Mere display of advertisements on buses operated by a State Transport Corporation does not, by itself, amount to the taxable service of sale of space or time for advertisement, so the related demand was unsustainable. Service tax on renting of immovable property could not be confirmed on the basis of unrealized or notional income reflected in financial records, because liability must rest on actual taxable receipt rather than accounting differences, so that demand also failed. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked without material showing suppression or intent to evade tax; audit detection alone was insufficient on these facts, so the time-bar objection was rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2025 19:39:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1513 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465424</link>
      <description>Mere display of advertisements on buses operated by a State Transport Corporation does not, by itself, amount to the taxable service of sale of space or time for advertisement, so the related demand was unsustainable. Service tax on renting of immovable property could not be confirmed on the basis of unrealized or notional income reflected in financial records, because liability must rest on actual taxable receipt rather than accounting differences, so that demand also failed. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked without material showing suppression or intent to evade tax; audit detection alone was insufficient on these facts, so the time-bar objection was rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>