<?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 709 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357006</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, ruling that tax liability for the appellants in India would not include admission fee, tuition fee, competition fee, and course instructor fee. The decision clarified that only amounts directly related to the representational right granted by the franchisor, like royalty and franchisee fees, should be taxable under the Franchisee Service category.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 709 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357006</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, ruling that tax liability for the appellants in India would not include admission fee, tuition fee, competition fee, and course instructor fee. The decision clarified that only amounts directly related to the representational right granted by the franchisor, like royalty and franchisee fees, should be taxable under the Franchisee Service category.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>