2018 (9) TMI 828 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Valuation – renting of immovable property service – inclusion of value of taxable services of interest accrued on security deposit paid in connection with renting of immovable property – Held that:- Tribunal in the case of K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune [2015 (2) TMI 886 – CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that interest accrued on such security deposit cannot be added to the renting agreed upon between the parties for the purpose of levy of service tax under the category of renting of immovable property – demand set aside.
–
Penalties – Held that:- All the disputes being only interpretational, there cannot be any penalty and hence the penalties imposed in the impugned order under the Finan
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune – 2015-TIOL-100-CESTAT-MUM which relying on the earlier decision in Magarpatta Township Developers & Construction Co. Ltd. – 2013-TIOL-1068-CESTAT-MUM, has held that interest accrued on such security deposit cannot be added to the renting agreed upon between the parties for the purpose of levy of service tax under the category of renting of immovable property. We find that similar view has also been taken by the Tribunal in Jain Construction Vs. CCE, Pune – 2014-TIOL-978-CESTAT-MUM. In the event, in respect of this dispute, we find in favour of the appellant. The interest that would have accrued on such security deposit therefore cannot be made part of the value for taxable service. Hence those portions of the im
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =