<?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 (7) TMI 863 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363555</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, a commercial training center, in a case concerning Service Tax liability on coaching services provided to another center. The Tribunal found that the amounts received were for coaching services and study material, with the Department failing to prove inclusion of study material cost in taxable service value. Additionally, the Department&#039;s claim that the amounts were professional fees, not salary/remuneration, lacked evidence. As a result, the demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalty was deemed unjustified due to insufficient proof, upholding the Commissioner&#039;s decision and rejecting the Department&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2018 07:48:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 863 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363555</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, a commercial training center, in a case concerning Service Tax liability on coaching services provided to another center. The Tribunal found that the amounts received were for coaching services and study material, with the Department failing to prove inclusion of study material cost in taxable service value. Additionally, the Department&#039;s claim that the amounts were professional fees, not salary/remuneration, lacked evidence. As a result, the demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalty was deemed unjustified due to insufficient proof, upholding the Commissioner&#039;s decision and rejecting the Department&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>