<?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 930 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797056</link>
    <description>Shared rent recovered from associate entities for residential premises used by common employees or directors does not attract service tax under renting of immovable property where the recipient is neither the owner nor a sublessor. Residential character was supported by utility bills and lease arrangements, while no material established use for commerce or business, a necessary condition for taxability. The recoveries represented only proportionate rent contributions from associate entities. The disputed levy and retrospective amendment also supported a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable. Accordingly, shared rent for premises not used for commerce or business was treated as not liable to service tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 08:38:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 930 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797056</link>
      <description>Shared rent recovered from associate entities for residential premises used by common employees or directors does not attract service tax under renting of immovable property where the recipient is neither the owner nor a sublessor. Residential character was supported by utility bills and lease arrangements, while no material established use for commerce or business, a necessary condition for taxability. The recoveries represented only proportionate rent contributions from associate entities. The disputed levy and retrospective amendment also supported a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable. Accordingly, shared rent for premises not used for commerce or business was treated as not liable to service tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>