<?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>2013 (12) TMI 1324 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241659</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the revision order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the services provided did not constitute management consultancy as alleged by the revisional authority. It noted that the show cause notice failed to establish the presence of management consultancy elements in the arrangement and that the appellant had been paying service tax under a different category, supporting their argument. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the service provider to be a management consultant for a service to be classified as management consultancy, which was not proven in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2013 09:33:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1324 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241659</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the revision order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the services provided did not constitute management consultancy as alleged by the revisional authority. It noted that the show cause notice failed to establish the presence of management consultancy elements in the arrangement and that the appellant had been paying service tax under a different category, supporting their argument. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the service provider to be a management consultant for a service to be classified as management consultancy, which was not proven in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>