<?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>2011 (6) TMI 185 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205250</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand against the appellants, engaged in Business Auxiliary Services, due to differences in income figures between their Profit and Loss account and ST-3 returns. The discrepancy was explained as arising from the timing of transactions under the mercantile system of accounting, without evidence of service provision or extra consideration. The Tribunal found the demand unjustified solely based on the variance in figures, remanding the matter for a fresh decision considering legal principles and granting the appellants the opportunity to clarify the variations. The appeal was allowed through remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178768" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 185 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205250</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand against the appellants, engaged in Business Auxiliary Services, due to differences in income figures between their Profit and Loss account and ST-3 returns. The discrepancy was explained as arising from the timing of transactions under the mercantile system of accounting, without evidence of service provision or extra consideration. The Tribunal found the demand unjustified solely based on the variance in figures, remanding the matter for a fresh decision considering legal principles and granting the appellants the opportunity to clarify the variations. The appeal was allowed through remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>