<?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>2004 (3) TMI 1 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=133</link>
    <description>Selling time slots, securing sponsorships and collecting broadcasting charges for foreign broadcasting agencies were held to fall within taxable broadcasting-related services where the signal was received in India through decoders. The Tribunal treated dissemination as complete on reception and applied the amended service tax provisions covering foreign broadcasting agencies operating through Indian representatives. The taxable value was held to be the full amount received from advertisers or sponsors, not merely the commission retained in India. Penalty was set aside because the legal position was unsettled during the relevant period, the provision had required retrospective amendment, and the assessees had registered and filed returns under protest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 1 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=133</link>
      <description>Selling time slots, securing sponsorships and collecting broadcasting charges for foreign broadcasting agencies were held to fall within taxable broadcasting-related services where the signal was received in India through decoders. The Tribunal treated dissemination as complete on reception and applied the amended service tax provisions covering foreign broadcasting agencies operating through Indian representatives. The taxable value was held to be the full amount received from advertisers or sponsors, not merely the commission retained in India. Penalty was set aside because the legal position was unsettled during the relevant period, the provision had required retrospective amendment, and the assessees had registered and filed returns under protest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>