<?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>1996 (10) TMI 1 - CEGAT (MUMBAI)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the orders demanding short levy and interest payment on service tax collected by stock brokers. It was noted that the brokerage already included the service tax as per client contracts, and the absence of regulatory instructions supported this. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reassessment based on the actual contract terms in Form A to determine the correct display of service tax, remitting the case for further review by the assessing officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 1 - CEGAT (MUMBAI)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the orders demanding short levy and interest payment on service tax collected by stock brokers. It was noted that the brokerage already included the service tax as per client contracts, and the absence of regulatory instructions supported this. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reassessment based on the actual contract terms in Form A to determine the correct display of service tax, remitting the case for further review by the assessing officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>