<?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>2014 (9) TMI 79 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251053</link>
    <description>Service tax on rent-a-cab activity was treated as taxable in light of the governing High Court precedent, so the demand with interest was upheld. Penalties under the Finance Act were not sustained because the assessee showed reasonable cause, supported by the earlier favourable Tribunal view, and section 80 barred penalty in those facts. The result was partial relief: substantive tax liability survived, but the penalty component was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:03:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 79 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251053</link>
      <description>Service tax on rent-a-cab activity was treated as taxable in light of the governing High Court precedent, so the demand with interest was upheld. Penalties under the Finance Act were not sustained because the assessee showed reasonable cause, supported by the earlier favourable Tribunal view, and section 80 barred penalty in those facts. The result was partial relief: substantive tax liability survived, but the penalty component was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>