<?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 (10) TMI 437 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211840</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the commission earned by a mutual fund distributor was not taxable on the distributor but on the mutual fund companies receiving the services, as per Rule 2(1)(d)(vi). The case was remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision due to the lack of addressing this legal issue by the lower authorities. The distributor was granted the opportunity to present their case before the adjudicating authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 437 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211840</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the commission earned by a mutual fund distributor was not taxable on the distributor but on the mutual fund companies receiving the services, as per Rule 2(1)(d)(vi). The case was remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision due to the lack of addressing this legal issue by the lower authorities. The distributor was granted the opportunity to present their case before the adjudicating authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>