<?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 561 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340058</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the confirmed amount already paid by the appellant but upheld the appropriation of this amount against the total demand. Penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were upheld due to intentional tax avoidance and non-compliance by the appellant, despite being a charitable trust. The judgment was pronounced on 10.02.2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 561 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340058</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the confirmed amount already paid by the appellant but upheld the appropriation of this amount against the total demand. Penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were upheld due to intentional tax avoidance and non-compliance by the appellant, despite being a charitable trust. The judgment was pronounced on 10.02.2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>