<?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 (8) TMI 794 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796920</link>
    <description>Renting residential dwellings for use as residence falls within the service-tax exclusion under Section 66D(m) of the Finance Act, 1994. Lease evidence established residential use for the first three properties, consistent with acceptance of the same lease terms for a later period. The fourth property was also leased for residential use by employees. All four properties therefore met the statutory condition, making the related service-tax demand, interest and penalty unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:30:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=916858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 794 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796920</link>
      <description>Renting residential dwellings for use as residence falls within the service-tax exclusion under Section 66D(m) of the Finance Act, 1994. Lease evidence established residential use for the first three properties, consistent with acceptance of the same lease terms for a later period. The fourth property was also leased for residential use by employees. All four properties therefore met the statutory condition, making the related service-tax demand, interest and penalty unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>