https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325171 The AAR held that the applicant's support services to the foreign entity constitute a single bundled business support service under Section 66F of the Finance Act and not an intermediary service under Rule 2(f) of the POP Rules. The place of provision is outside India as per Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, making the service an export of taxable service under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Consequently, the services are not liable to service tax in India. The applicant does not provide services directly to Indian customers nor receives consideration from them; fees are paid by the foreign entity in US dollars. The benefit of the services accrues outside India. The decision favored the applicant, exempting the activity from service tax liability. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2025 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325171 The AAR held that the applicant's support services to the foreign entity constitute a single bundled business support service under Section 66F of the Finance Act and not an intermediary service under Rule 2(f) of the POP Rules. The place of provision is outside India as per Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, making the service an export of taxable service under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Consequently, the services are not liable to service tax in India. The applicant does not provide services directly to Indian customers nor receives consideration from them; fees are paid by the foreign entity in US dollars. The benefit of the services accrues outside India. The decision favored the applicant, exempting the activity from service tax liability. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325171