<?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>2015 (10) TMI 2358 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267084</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore held that reimbursement expenses should not be included in the assessable value of services provided, overturning the Commissioner&#039;s decision based on Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules of 2006. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that such expenses are not part of the assessable value. However, concerns were raised about verifying the actual expenses incurred and distinguishing incentives paid to workers. The Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority for further verification, directing the appellant to address the incentive reimbursement issue. Both appeals were allowed for reexamination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:17:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2358 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267084</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore held that reimbursement expenses should not be included in the assessable value of services provided, overturning the Commissioner&#039;s decision based on Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules of 2006. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that such expenses are not part of the assessable value. However, concerns were raised about verifying the actual expenses incurred and distinguishing incentives paid to workers. The Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority for further verification, directing the appellant to address the incentive reimbursement issue. Both appeals were allowed for reexamination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>