<?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>2007 (2) TMI 106 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1928</link>
    <description>Services performed by a stock broker and share transfer agent were examined for possible classification as Business Auxiliary Services in a stay application. The tribunal noted that service tax was already being paid as a stock broker and that the activities did not involve promotion or marketing of goods. On a prima facie view, the service did not satisfy the ingredients of Business Auxiliary Services, and the stay request was rejected for want of merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41306" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 106 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1928</link>
      <description>Services performed by a stock broker and share transfer agent were examined for possible classification as Business Auxiliary Services in a stay application. The tribunal noted that service tax was already being paid as a stock broker and that the activities did not involve promotion or marketing of goods. On a prima facie view, the service did not satisfy the ingredients of Business Auxiliary Services, and the stay request was rejected for want of merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>