<?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 1005 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348248</link>
    <description>Arranging foreign speakers through overseas agents fell within Event Management Service because the intermediary activity was integral to organising the summit, but extended limitation and penalties were unsustainable absent proof of suppression or wilful misstatement, so tax survived only for the normal period. Amounts recovered under Management Consultancy Service were treated as pure agent reimbursements because the appellant acted on prior authorisation and recovered actual costs, so that demand failed. Cost-sharing receipts from group companies were mere allocations of common expenses, not consideration for Business Support Service, so that demand also failed. Interest could not be levied on associated-enterprise book entries made before 10.05.2008 because the amendment operated prospectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1005 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348248</link>
      <description>Arranging foreign speakers through overseas agents fell within Event Management Service because the intermediary activity was integral to organising the summit, but extended limitation and penalties were unsustainable absent proof of suppression or wilful misstatement, so tax survived only for the normal period. Amounts recovered under Management Consultancy Service were treated as pure agent reimbursements because the appellant acted on prior authorisation and recovered actual costs, so that demand failed. Cost-sharing receipts from group companies were mere allocations of common expenses, not consideration for Business Support Service, so that demand also failed. Interest could not be levied on associated-enterprise book entries made before 10.05.2008 because the amendment operated prospectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348248</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>