<?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 (2) TMI 642 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203171</link>
    <description>A type rating training institute was held not to fall within the exclusion for a commercial training or coaching centre because the course completion certificate it issued was not shown to be a qualification recognised by law; the relevant aircraft rules required DGCA endorsement after examination and compliance with prescribed conditions. The institute also did not qualify as a vocational training institute for exemption, because the training did not by itself enable direct employment or self-employment and only formed a step toward later statutory endorsement. Both the claimed exclusion and the exemption were therefore denied on the stated facts and legal framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 642 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203171</link>
      <description>A type rating training institute was held not to fall within the exclusion for a commercial training or coaching centre because the course completion certificate it issued was not shown to be a qualification recognised by law; the relevant aircraft rules required DGCA endorsement after examination and compliance with prescribed conditions. The institute also did not qualify as a vocational training institute for exemption, because the training did not by itself enable direct employment or self-employment and only formed a step toward later statutory endorsement. Both the claimed exclusion and the exemption were therefore denied on the stated facts and legal framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>