<?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>2010 (12) TMI 103 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202169</link>
    <description>Input service credit was denied on club membership charges because the appellants failed to show that the memberships were used for business meetings or had any nexus with the firm&#039;s business activity. It was also admitted that the firm itself was not a club member. In the absence of evidence linking the service availed to the business operations, the requirement of input service under Rule 2(l) was not met, and credit was therefore unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 103 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202169</link>
      <description>Input service credit was denied on club membership charges because the appellants failed to show that the memberships were used for business meetings or had any nexus with the firm&#039;s business activity. It was also admitted that the firm itself was not a club member. In the absence of evidence linking the service availed to the business operations, the requirement of input service under Rule 2(l) was not met, and credit was therefore unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>