<?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>Joint co-owners receiving rent separately cannot be treated as an Association of Persons for service tax unless material shows they formed a taxable common entity. On the record, the rental income was received individually and the exemption threshold under Notification No. 33/2012 was satisfied, so tax could not be demanded on a collective basis. The service tax demand was therefore not sustainable, and the impugned orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2026 20:18:21 +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>Joint co-owners receiving rent separately cannot be treated as an Association of Persons for service tax unless material shows they formed a taxable common entity. On the record, the rental income was received individually and the exemption threshold under Notification No. 33/2012 was satisfied, so tax could not be demanded on a collective basis. The service tax demand was therefore not sustainable, and the impugned orders were 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>