<?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>2017 (1) TMI 610 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337530</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the taxability of loan fees received for arranging loans, determining the services did not align with taxable categories. Similarly, the tax liability on brokerage for distributing IPO was dismissed as not falling under Business Auxiliary Service during the relevant period. Consequently, the inclusion of reimbursable expenditure for taxation was not applicable, leading to the allowance of the appeal in its entirety.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 610 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337530</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the taxability of loan fees received for arranging loans, determining the services did not align with taxable categories. Similarly, the tax liability on brokerage for distributing IPO was dismissed as not falling under Business Auxiliary Service during the relevant period. Consequently, the inclusion of reimbursable expenditure for taxation was not applicable, leading to the allowance of the appeal in its entirety.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>