<?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>ST on compensation</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=109240</link>
    <description>Compensation or liquidated damages for delayed erection work may prima facie fall within declared services under Section 66E(e) and attract service tax; however, a tribunal view treating such amounts as a price reduction can reduce the taxable value of the supply and negate separate taxation. If the compensation has already been taxed, it should not be taxed again. The contractual basis and factual nature of the payment determine whether it is a declared service or a value adjustment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:52:07 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:56:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>ST on compensation</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=109240</link>
      <description>Compensation or liquidated damages for delayed erection work may prima facie fall within declared services under Section 66E(e) and attract service tax; however, a tribunal view treating such amounts as a price reduction can reduce the taxable value of the supply and negate separate taxation. If the compensation has already been taxed, it should not be taxed again. The contractual basis and factual nature of the payment determine whether it is a declared service or a value adjustment.</description>
      <category>Discussion-Forum</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:52:07 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=109240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>