<?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 (3) TMI 250 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339747</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on legal and chartered accountant services used for due diligence in connection with a proposed acquisition was held admissible, even though the proposal was later abandoned. The amended definition of input service from 01.04.2011 expressly included accounting, financial and legal services, and credit could not be denied merely because the due diligence report was not ultimately acted upon. The non-crystallisation of the acquisition was treated as an internal business decision, not a ground to disallow credit. As the services were received, tax was paid, and they had a business nexus with the appellant&#039;s stock broking activity, the disallowance was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 250 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339747</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on legal and chartered accountant services used for due diligence in connection with a proposed acquisition was held admissible, even though the proposal was later abandoned. The amended definition of input service from 01.04.2011 expressly included accounting, financial and legal services, and credit could not be denied merely because the due diligence report was not ultimately acted upon. The non-crystallisation of the acquisition was treated as an internal business decision, not a ground to disallow credit. As the services were received, tax was paid, and they had a business nexus with the appellant&#039;s stock broking activity, the disallowance was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>