<?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>2018 (1) TMI 215 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353479</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the original authority&#039;s decision, ruling that the transport services provided by the company did not fall under the &quot;Rent-a-Cab-Scheme Operator&#039;s Service&quot; category for service tax liability. The judgment emphasized that the nature of services provided and control over the vehicles were pivotal in determining tax liability, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 215 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353479</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the original authority&#039;s decision, ruling that the transport services provided by the company did not fall under the &quot;Rent-a-Cab-Scheme Operator&#039;s Service&quot; category for service tax liability. The judgment emphasized that the nature of services provided and control over the vehicles were pivotal in determining tax liability, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>