<?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 (10) TMI 1384 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467777</link>
    <description>Co-owners of jointly owned immovable property who received rent separately in their individual capacities were not shown, on the record, to constitute an Association of Persons for service tax purposes. The absence of registration in the name of any collective entity and the lack of evidence of joint receipt of rent meant liability could not be fastened on a non-existent AOP. The discussion also notes that, where the taxable value remained within the exemption threshold and tax with interest had been paid before notice for the later period, the notice and penalty provisions were not attracted. The impugned orders were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 11:52:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 1384 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467777</link>
      <description>Co-owners of jointly owned immovable property who received rent separately in their individual capacities were not shown, on the record, to constitute an Association of Persons for service tax purposes. The absence of registration in the name of any collective entity and the lack of evidence of joint receipt of rent meant liability could not be fastened on a non-existent AOP. The discussion also notes that, where the taxable value remained within the exemption threshold and tax with interest had been paid before notice for the later period, the notice and penalty provisions were not attracted. The impugned orders were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467777</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>