https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372104 Service tax valuation under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 was limited to the gross amount charged for the taxable service actually rendered, so amounts collected for other purposes could not be automatically included. Rule 5(1)(a) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 could not enlarge the charging provision to cover reimbursable expenditure. Transaction charges collected by a stock broker required factual verification to determine whether the broker acted on a principal-to-principal basis or as a pure agent. The matter was remanded for re-examination of the records and fresh determination of liability. en-us Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Aug 2019 17:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372104 Service tax valuation under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 was limited to the gross amount charged for the taxable service actually rendered, so amounts collected for other purposes could not be automatically included. Rule 5(1)(a) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 could not enlarge the charging provision to cover reimbursable expenditure. Transaction charges collected by a stock broker required factual verification to determine whether the broker acted on a principal-to-principal basis or as a pure agent. The matter was remanded for re-examination of the records and fresh determination of liability. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372104