https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337896 The Tribunal upheld the tax liability of the appellant for commission received for underwriting services, rejecting their argument for classification under 'Merchant Banking Services.' The invocation of the extended period for demand was deemed valid due to non-disclosure of the activity, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The decision emphasized proper classification and disclosure of activities to tax authorities, affirming the legality of the impugned order. en-us Wed, 28 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:24:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337896 The Tribunal upheld the tax liability of the appellant for commission received for underwriting services, rejecting their argument for classification under 'Merchant Banking Services.' The invocation of the extended period for demand was deemed valid due to non-disclosure of the activity, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The decision emphasized proper classification and disclosure of activities to tax authorities, affirming the legality of the impugned order. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 28 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337896