<?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 438 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341468</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in a tax dispute concerning incentives received for &#039;business auxiliary service&#039; from M/s. Saudi Airlines. The consideration was deemed not falling under the definition of &#039;taxable service&#039;. The Tribunal addressed issues of short-payment of tax on ticket sales and cargo commissions, disputed tax on gross receipts, and analyzed &#039;cum-tax valuation&#039;. Refund claims were denied without specific statutory provisions. Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 were set aside due to prompt payments. The appeal of the assessee was allowed with adjustments in tax liability, while the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:22:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 438 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341468</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in a tax dispute concerning incentives received for &#039;business auxiliary service&#039; from M/s. Saudi Airlines. The consideration was deemed not falling under the definition of &#039;taxable service&#039;. The Tribunal addressed issues of short-payment of tax on ticket sales and cargo commissions, disputed tax on gross receipts, and analyzed &#039;cum-tax valuation&#039;. Refund claims were denied without specific statutory provisions. Penalties under Sections 76 and 77 were set aside due to prompt payments. The appeal of the assessee was allowed with adjustments in tax liability, while the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>