<?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 913 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333893</link>
    <description>The court clarified the taxability of gross receipts in service tax returns, emphasizing the determination of tax liability based on value addition. The judgment favored the respondent, who had consistently paid tax on the value addition alone, believing it to be the correct taxable value. The court highlighted the lack of evidence of deliberate tax evasion and ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the tax demand was barred by limitation due to the continuous filing of returns reflecting only the commission.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 913 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333893</link>
      <description>The court clarified the taxability of gross receipts in service tax returns, emphasizing the determination of tax liability based on value addition. The judgment favored the respondent, who had consistently paid tax on the value addition alone, believing it to be the correct taxable value. The court highlighted the lack of evidence of deliberate tax evasion and ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the tax demand was barred by limitation due to the continuous filing of returns reflecting only the commission.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>