<?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>2016 (6) TMI 721 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329012</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of tax liability on reimbursements included in the gross value of consideration for services provided, following the interpretation set by a Larger Bench decision. However, no penalty was imposed on the appellant due to the evolving nature of tax laws during the early stages of the service tax regime implementation. The appeal was partly allowed, affirming the tax liability on reimbursements but showing leniency in penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:21:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 721 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329012</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of tax liability on reimbursements included in the gross value of consideration for services provided, following the interpretation set by a Larger Bench decision. However, no penalty was imposed on the appellant due to the evolving nature of tax laws during the early stages of the service tax regime implementation. The appeal was partly allowed, affirming the tax liability on reimbursements but showing leniency in penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329012</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>