<?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 1810 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295092</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the demand for service tax on expenses claimed as reimbursement from the principal by the appellant. The appellant&#039;s argument that these expenses should not be included in the assessable value for service tax calculation was rejected. The Tribunal held the appellant liable to pay the demanded service tax, citing a previous Larger Bench decision. However, the penalty imposed was set aside under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 May 2021 08:37:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1810 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295092</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the demand for service tax on expenses claimed as reimbursement from the principal by the appellant. The appellant&#039;s argument that these expenses should not be included in the assessable value for service tax calculation was rejected. The Tribunal held the appellant liable to pay the demanded service tax, citing a previous Larger Bench decision. However, the penalty imposed was set aside under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>