<?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 (11) TMI 220 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203957</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision due to insufficient evidence linking the undeclared income to taxable services provided by the respondent. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasonable degree of proof, noting the varied business activities of the respondent and the absence of inquiries into their turnover. The decision was supported by a previous Tribunal ruling in a similar case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 220 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203957</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision due to insufficient evidence linking the undeclared income to taxable services provided by the respondent. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasonable degree of proof, noting the varied business activities of the respondent and the absence of inquiries into their turnover. The decision was supported by a previous Tribunal ruling in a similar case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203957</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>