<?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 (4) TMI 335 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341365</link>
    <description>The dispute concerned whether exemption notifications for computer training services applied and, more importantly, whether the extended limitation period could be used absent suppression of facts or contumacious conduct. The Tribunal found no material showing intent to evade tax and held that the extended period was not invocable. As a result, the demand, interest and penalties were set aside and consequential relief was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:04:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 335 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341365</link>
      <description>The dispute concerned whether exemption notifications for computer training services applied and, more importantly, whether the extended limitation period could be used absent suppression of facts or contumacious conduct. The Tribunal found no material showing intent to evade tax and held that the extended period was not invocable. As a result, the demand, interest and penalties were set aside and consequential relief was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341365</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>