<?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 1053 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354317</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court settled the issue of service tax applicability on Architect Services, creating ambiguity during the disputed period of 2001-2006. The Tribunal overturned penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 &amp;amp; 78 of the Finance Act due to the lack of clarity. Discrepancies in accounting arose from confusion over service tax, leading to non-filing of Income Tax returns. The appellant contended underpayment of fees due to client resistance to pay service tax, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate. The Tribunal directed a reevaluation of the service tax demand, considering subcontractor tax discharge and reimbursable expenses treatment, granting a new adjudication opportunity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:13:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1053 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354317</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court settled the issue of service tax applicability on Architect Services, creating ambiguity during the disputed period of 2001-2006. The Tribunal overturned penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77 &amp;amp; 78 of the Finance Act due to the lack of clarity. Discrepancies in accounting arose from confusion over service tax, leading to non-filing of Income Tax returns. The appellant contended underpayment of fees due to client resistance to pay service tax, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate. The Tribunal directed a reevaluation of the service tax demand, considering subcontractor tax discharge and reimbursable expenses treatment, granting a new adjudication opportunity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>