<?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 (8) TMI 650 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210448</link>
    <description>Services rendered by a sub-broker in relation to the sale or purchase of securities in a recognised stock exchange became taxable only from 10.09.2004, when the statutory definition of stock broker was amended to include such services. The Tribunal followed the larger bench view and held that service tax could not be demanded for any earlier period. The demand for the disputed period was therefore unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 650 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210448</link>
      <description>Services rendered by a sub-broker in relation to the sale or purchase of securities in a recognised stock exchange became taxable only from 10.09.2004, when the statutory definition of stock broker was amended to include such services. The Tribunal followed the larger bench view and held that service tax could not be demanded for any earlier period. The demand for the disputed period was therefore unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>