<?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 1432 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469619</link>
    <description>Conflicting judicial views on the taxability of renting of immovable property under the Finance Act, 1994 supported a bona fide belief, so the ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation were not satisfied. As a result, the service tax demand was time-barred and could not be sustained even for the normal period. The analysis turned on limitation rather than on any substantive finding against the assessee, and the assessee succeeded on the limitation defence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 18:57:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 1432 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469619</link>
      <description>Conflicting judicial views on the taxability of renting of immovable property under the Finance Act, 1994 supported a bona fide belief, so the ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation were not satisfied. As a result, the service tax demand was time-barred and could not be sustained even for the normal period. The analysis turned on limitation rather than on any substantive finding against the assessee, and the assessee succeeded on the limitation defence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>