<?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 (2) TMI 569 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355148</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that charges such as NSE/BSE transaction charges, SEBI turnover fees, Stamp duty, Depository/Demat charges, and Security Transaction charges, when collected separately and not retained by stock brokers, should not be included in the taxable value of brokerage and commission charges. Additionally, Demat charges paid to depository participants were not considered part of &quot;Banking and Financial Services.&quot; The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting relief to the stock brokers. The issue of limitation period for issuing the demand was not explicitly addressed but was implicitly supported in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 569 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355148</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that charges such as NSE/BSE transaction charges, SEBI turnover fees, Stamp duty, Depository/Demat charges, and Security Transaction charges, when collected separately and not retained by stock brokers, should not be included in the taxable value of brokerage and commission charges. Additionally, Demat charges paid to depository participants were not considered part of &quot;Banking and Financial Services.&quot; The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting relief to the stock brokers. The issue of limitation period for issuing the demand was not explicitly addressed but was implicitly supported in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>