<?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>2012 (4) TMI 429 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212802</link>
    <description>The case involves a dispute over the eligibility of a taxpayer for service tax credit on mobile telephone services based on invoices from the Head Office. The main issue is the lack of documentary evidence showing the use of mobile services in relation to the business. The court acknowledges that credit can be granted if the phones were used for office purposes, but as specific details were not provided, the case is remanded for further verification of documents related to phone utilization and service tax payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 429 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212802</link>
      <description>The case involves a dispute over the eligibility of a taxpayer for service tax credit on mobile telephone services based on invoices from the Head Office. The main issue is the lack of documentary evidence showing the use of mobile services in relation to the business. The court acknowledges that credit can be granted if the phones were used for office purposes, but as specific details were not provided, the case is remanded for further verification of documents related to phone utilization and service tax payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>