<?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 (9) TMI 225 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347468</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding Service Tax liability on &quot;Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service,&quot; dismissing the appellant&#039;s appeal. The appellant&#039;s contention that the recipient of service should not be considered a client was rejected, and it was determined that the appellant could not selectively decide its tax liability for similar services provided to different clients. The Tribunal also found that the show cause proceedings were not time-barred, as the appellant had paid taxes for services provided to other clients and included Service Tax liability in the consideration for services provided to the disputed client.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 225 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347468</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding Service Tax liability on &quot;Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service,&quot; dismissing the appellant&#039;s appeal. The appellant&#039;s contention that the recipient of service should not be considered a client was rejected, and it was determined that the appellant could not selectively decide its tax liability for similar services provided to different clients. The Tribunal also found that the show cause proceedings were not time-barred, as the appellant had paid taxes for services provided to other clients and included Service Tax liability in the consideration for services provided to the disputed client.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>