Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Lake Palace Hotel and Motels P Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II And Vice-Versa

2016 (1) TMI 1062 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Renting of immovable property on profit sharing basis - demand of service tax on renting including on notional interest received on the security deposit made with the appellants. - Held that:- As the issue has already been settled in appellants own case for earlier period, that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of renting of immovable property service as leasing out the property to Hotel under the deemed provision of section 65 (105)(zzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

NGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Rachit Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, AR ORDER PER ASHOK JINDAL : The appellant is in appeal along with application for stay against the demand confirmed against them on account of renting of immovable property service and notional interest received on the security deposit made with the appellants. 2. Revenue has also filed an appeal for imposing penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The facts of the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso proposed that as appellant has received a security deposit of ₹ 20 crores, therefore, the notional interest on the security deposit, appellant is liable to pay the service tax. In these set of facts, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for the period 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 to demand service tax as discussed above. The matter was adjudicated, demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and various penalties were imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rty service. He further submits that they are not required to pay service tax and notional interest accrued on the security deposit as held by this Tribunal in the case of K Raheja Corp. Ltd vs CCE, Pune III - [2015-TIOL-100-CESTAT-MUM] Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that at the time of leasing out the property to the Indian Hotel Company Ltd., it was only of immovable property and no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version