<?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 (6) TMI 111 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792730</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. was confined to services provided by an entity registered under section 12AA and actually engaged in the prescribed charitable activities; mere registration was insufficient. On that basis, letting commercial shops within church premises to private tenants for business use was treated as taxable renting of immovable property, and the exemption for precincts of a religious place meant for general public did not apply. The extended period of limitation was not sustained because the transactions were reflected in the records and the assessee acted under a bona fide belief, so the demand was confined to the normal period and the penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:50:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 111 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792730</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. was confined to services provided by an entity registered under section 12AA and actually engaged in the prescribed charitable activities; mere registration was insufficient. On that basis, letting commercial shops within church premises to private tenants for business use was treated as taxable renting of immovable property, and the exemption for precincts of a religious place meant for general public did not apply. The extended period of limitation was not sustained because the transactions were reflected in the records and the assessee acted under a bona fide belief, so the demand was confined to the normal period and the penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>