<?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>2026 (5) TMI 9 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790807</link>
    <description>Services rendered by a club to its own members were not taxable under Club or Association services because mutuality applied, and that demand was set aside. Receipt of downlinking charges for telecast of racing events fell within Commercial Use or Exploitation of Event services, but only from 01.07.2010 when the category came into force, so the demand was upheld only for the taxable period. Bookmakers stall fees were not rent for immovable property because the space was provided for licensed operations, not on a tenancy basis, and that demand failed. The food court activity was taxable as Restaurant services, and sponsorship of sports events was also taxable. The extended period of limitation was not invocable, so the demand survived only for the normal period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 10:14:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 9 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790807</link>
      <description>Services rendered by a club to its own members were not taxable under Club or Association services because mutuality applied, and that demand was set aside. Receipt of downlinking charges for telecast of racing events fell within Commercial Use or Exploitation of Event services, but only from 01.07.2010 when the category came into force, so the demand was upheld only for the taxable period. Bookmakers stall fees were not rent for immovable property because the space was provided for licensed operations, not on a tenancy basis, and that demand failed. The food court activity was taxable as Restaurant services, and sponsorship of sports events was also taxable. The extended period of limitation was not invocable, so the demand survived only for the normal period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>