<?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 (6) TMI 705 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173156</link>
    <description>Maintenance and repair work performed by a branch for its head office was treated as an intra-entity activity, and a service by one part of the same business concern to itself was held not to amount to a taxable service. Cancellation of invoices and re-issuance in the head office&#039;s name did not change the essential character of the transaction or create service tax liability. The Revenue&#039;s demand was therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2015 15:55:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 705 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173156</link>
      <description>Maintenance and repair work performed by a branch for its head office was treated as an intra-entity activity, and a service by one part of the same business concern to itself was held not to amount to a taxable service. Cancellation of invoices and re-issuance in the head office&#039;s name did not change the essential character of the transaction or create service tax liability. The Revenue&#039;s demand was therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173156</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>