Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (5) TMI 343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... constructed thereon could not have been sold by them because they cannot sell what they do not own. - having regard to the appellants' plea that the advances received had been subsequently adjusted in the rental/lease income shown on which service tax has been demanded and that they should be extended the cum-tax benefit, we order pre-deposit of ₹ 75 lakhs within 8 weeks - Partial stay granted. - Application No.ST/MISC/50579/2015-CU[DB], Application No.ST/STAY/52513/2014-CU[DB], Appeal No.ST/52017/2014-CU[DB] - MISC.ORDER NO. 51077/2015, STAY ORDER NO. 51078/2015 - Dated:- 17-3-2015 - G Raghuram, President And R K Singh, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri A K Batra, CA For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s a case of simple lease of immovable property and the appellants could not have sold it because they themselves acquired the piece of land on lease for 30 years. He also added that while giving on lease for 30 years, they had put conditions with regard to use of the property and therefore it was incorrect to say that they had given up all their rights. 3. We have considered the contentions of both sides. There is no dispute regarding liability to service tax on the monthly rental income received except on the issue of admissibility of SSI benefit with regard thereto. However, if the income received from 30 year-lease of property is considered to be taxable, the question of eligibility for the SSI benefit would not arise. We find that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble Property . We find that in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. CCEST, Noida [Final Order No.ST/A/58664/2013, dated 11.12.2013], CESTAT has come to a similar finding and the judgement of Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. Vs. DCIT-[2012-TIOL-515-HC-DEL-IT], referred to by the ld. counsel for the appellants has been dealt with in the said judgement. The judgement of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (supra) cited by the appellants also does not come to their rescue because prima facie the issue is more directly covered by the judgement of CESTAT in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra) and the appellants could not show as to how the ratio of the NOIDA judgement is eclipsed {even p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates