<?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>Court Examines Service Arrangement Classification for Tax; Labels Alone Don&#039;t Define Franchise Services Under Tax Law.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51112</link>
    <description>Franchise Service - principal-agent relationship - collection of payment on behalf of the Appellant - Mere use of word ‘principle to principle’ basis cannot be read for the impugned arrangement between appellant and his agents to be called as franchise service - The term of agreement is absolutely against the intent of what can be called as franchise service.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2020 10:14:56 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2020 10:14:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Examines Service Arrangement Classification for Tax; Labels Alone Don&#039;t Define Franchise Services Under Tax Law.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51112</link>
      <description>Franchise Service - principal-agent relationship - collection of payment on behalf of the Appellant - Mere use of word ‘principle to principle’ basis cannot be read for the impugned arrangement between appellant and his agents to be called as franchise service - The term of agreement is absolutely against the intent of what can be called as franchise service.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2020 10:14:56 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>