<?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 (3) TMI 352 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356649</link>
    <description>Training provided to insurance agents was treated as vocational training rather than taxable commercial coaching because it was designed to equip candidates for the IRDA examination and to function in the insurance vocation. The institute&#039;s IRDA approval supported the vocational character of the programme, and the fact that a further examination was required did not remove the exemption where the training directly enabled entry into employment or self-employment in the field. Following the earlier identical ruling, the service was held exempt and the service tax demand was unsustainable; the Revenue appeals failed and the orders setting aside the demand were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 06:53:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 352 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356649</link>
      <description>Training provided to insurance agents was treated as vocational training rather than taxable commercial coaching because it was designed to equip candidates for the IRDA examination and to function in the insurance vocation. The institute&#039;s IRDA approval supported the vocational character of the programme, and the fact that a further examination was required did not remove the exemption where the training directly enabled entry into employment or self-employment in the field. Following the earlier identical ruling, the service was held exempt and the service tax demand was unsustainable; the Revenue appeals failed and the orders setting aside the demand were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>