<?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 1127 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355706</link>
    <description>Amounts retained by a chit fund manager while conducting chit fund services were considered in the context of service tax under banking and other financial services. The Tribunal noted that the issue was no longer res integra because the Supreme Court had already held that such retained amounts are not taxable under that category. On that basis, the service tax demand on the retained portion could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2018 06:42:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1127 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355706</link>
      <description>Amounts retained by a chit fund manager while conducting chit fund services were considered in the context of service tax under banking and other financial services. The Tribunal noted that the issue was no longer res integra because the Supreme Court had already held that such retained amounts are not taxable under that category. On that basis, the service tax demand on the retained portion could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>