https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365345 The Tribunal held that the demand for service tax on commission received from ICICI Bank for business auxiliary services was time-barred due to conflicting views and ambiguity, setting it aside. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding referral fees from HDFC Chubb, determining the services provided fell under Insurance Auxiliary Services, not Business Auxiliary Services, thus rejecting the service tax demand. The extended period for tax demand was deemed inapplicable due to lack of malafide intention, resulting in the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:23:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365345 The Tribunal held that the demand for service tax on commission received from ICICI Bank for business auxiliary services was time-barred due to conflicting views and ambiguity, setting it aside. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding referral fees from HDFC Chubb, determining the services provided fell under Insurance Auxiliary Services, not Business Auxiliary Services, thus rejecting the service tax demand. The extended period for tax demand was deemed inapplicable due to lack of malafide intention, resulting in the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365345