<?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>2019 (7) TMI 207 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382511</link>
    <description>Commission for money transfer services rendered for a foreign principal was treated as export of services and not taxable as Business Auxiliary Service because the remuneration arose from work performed in India for the foreign remittance network. Commission for arranging air tickets was also held outside Business Auxiliary Service since no commission-agent relationship or promotion of another travel business was proved, and the activity was characterised as sale and purchase of tickets. Fee for filing passport applications was exempt because the aggregate taxable value remained within the threshold prescribed by Notification No. 6/2005-ST. The service tax demand was set aside in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2019 06:12:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=577731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 207 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382511</link>
      <description>Commission for money transfer services rendered for a foreign principal was treated as export of services and not taxable as Business Auxiliary Service because the remuneration arose from work performed in India for the foreign remittance network. Commission for arranging air tickets was also held outside Business Auxiliary Service since no commission-agent relationship or promotion of another travel business was proved, and the activity was characterised as sale and purchase of tickets. Fee for filing passport applications was exempt because the aggregate taxable value remained within the threshold prescribed by Notification No. 6/2005-ST. The service tax demand was set aside in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>