<?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 (10) TMI 390 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333370</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that their financial advisory services were correctly classified under Banking and Other Financial Services, not under Management Consultancy Service. The impugned order demanding Service Tax under the incorrect category was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 390 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333370</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that their financial advisory services were correctly classified under Banking and Other Financial Services, not under Management Consultancy Service. The impugned order demanding Service Tax under the incorrect category was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>