<?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 (9) TMI 1445 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367709</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a registered &quot;Forward Contract&quot; service provider, in a dispute regarding the demand of service tax on amounts refunded to sub-brokers before the due date of filing returns. The Tribunal held that the tax liability should be based on the actual brokerage amounts received from sub-brokers, not the initial amounts received. The impugned order demanding service tax along with interest and penalties was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:23:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1445 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367709</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a registered &quot;Forward Contract&quot; service provider, in a dispute regarding the demand of service tax on amounts refunded to sub-brokers before the due date of filing returns. The Tribunal held that the tax liability should be based on the actual brokerage amounts received from sub-brokers, not the initial amounts received. The impugned order demanding service tax along with interest and penalties was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>