<?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>2014 (8) TMI 1122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195207</link>
    <description>Service tax liability was examined in the context of whether activities fell within commercial training or coaching service under section 65(26) read with section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, and whether a legally relevant distinction exists between training or coaching and education. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law, but there was no final adjudication on the merits of tax liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:17:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 1122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195207</link>
      <description>Service tax liability was examined in the context of whether activities fell within commercial training or coaching service under section 65(26) read with section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, and whether a legally relevant distinction exists between training or coaching and education. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law, but there was no final adjudication on the merits of tax liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>