<?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 (11) TMI 1293 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335275</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demands under stock broker services, banking and other financial services, and business auxiliary service. The decision was based on the distinct taxability of transaction charges, the penal nature of delayed payment charges, and the principle that new services cannot be taxed retrospectively before their introduction. Only the admitted service tax amounts were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:03:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1293 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335275</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demands under stock broker services, banking and other financial services, and business auxiliary service. The decision was based on the distinct taxability of transaction charges, the penal nature of delayed payment charges, and the principle that new services cannot be taxed retrospectively before their introduction. Only the admitted service tax amounts were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>