<?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 (2) TMI 210 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338510</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed, ruling that if the main broker has paid service tax on the commission received, the sub-broker should not be liable for service tax on the same amount. The decision was based on established precedent and interpretation of relevant Tribunal cases, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the service tax demand on the sub-brokers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 09:57:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 210 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338510</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed, ruling that if the main broker has paid service tax on the commission received, the sub-broker should not be liable for service tax on the same amount. The decision was based on established precedent and interpretation of relevant Tribunal cases, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the service tax demand on the sub-brokers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338510</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>