<?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 (7) TMI 158 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794272</link>
    <description>Revenue-sharing between a cinema exhibitor and film distributors was held not to be taxable as Business Support Service because the agreements operated on a principal-to-principal basis. The exhibitor merely screened films in its multiplex and paid the distributors a pre-decided share of revenue for exhibition rights; no service was rendered by the exhibitor to the distributor and no consideration flowed from the distributor to the exhibitor. The Tribunal treated the arrangement as neither a joint venture nor a support service, and followed earlier Tribunal rulings, including the appellant&#039;s own case, as upheld by the Supreme Court. Service tax, interest and penalty therefore could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:49:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 158 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794272</link>
      <description>Revenue-sharing between a cinema exhibitor and film distributors was held not to be taxable as Business Support Service because the agreements operated on a principal-to-principal basis. The exhibitor merely screened films in its multiplex and paid the distributors a pre-decided share of revenue for exhibition rights; no service was rendered by the exhibitor to the distributor and no consideration flowed from the distributor to the exhibitor. The Tribunal treated the arrangement as neither a joint venture nor a support service, and followed earlier Tribunal rulings, including the appellant&#039;s own case, as upheld by the Supreme Court. Service tax, interest and penalty therefore could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>