<?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 (6) TMI 1303 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362476</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a society registered under the Societies Act, 1860, and Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, in a tax liability case. The Tribunal confirmed tax liability on &#039;commercial training or coaching service&#039; as the appellant&#039;s courses did not qualify as vocational training. However, the Tribunal dismissed tax liability on &#039;business auxiliary service&#039; due to the lack of a client-principal relationship. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the appellant regarding tax liability on &#039;management of business consultancy service&#039; and &#039;convention service&#039; and &#039;mandap keeper service&#039;. The Tribunal upheld tax liability on &#039;renting of immovable property service&#039; and restricted the duty liability to the normal period of limitation, rejecting the extended period due to lack of misrepresentation or suppression by the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 08:58:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1303 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362476</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a society registered under the Societies Act, 1860, and Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, in a tax liability case. The Tribunal confirmed tax liability on &#039;commercial training or coaching service&#039; as the appellant&#039;s courses did not qualify as vocational training. However, the Tribunal dismissed tax liability on &#039;business auxiliary service&#039; due to the lack of a client-principal relationship. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the appellant regarding tax liability on &#039;management of business consultancy service&#039; and &#039;convention service&#039; and &#039;mandap keeper service&#039;. The Tribunal upheld tax liability on &#039;renting of immovable property service&#039; and restricted the duty liability to the normal period of limitation, rejecting the extended period due to lack of misrepresentation or suppression by the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>