<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1749 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295216</link>
    <description>The appeal by the Revenue against a service tax demand on clearing and forwarding services was dismissed. The Tribunal ruled that expenses reimbursed to C &amp;amp; F agents on an actual basis should not be included in the taxable consideration for service tax purposes. The judgment emphasized the significance of considering actual expenses incurred by agents and highlighted the relevance of case laws in determining tax liability. The overall commission received by the respondent for promoting the client&#039;s business was subject to tax, but as specific findings on untaxed portions were lacking, the impugned order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 May 2021 08:37:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1749 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295216</link>
      <description>The appeal by the Revenue against a service tax demand on clearing and forwarding services was dismissed. The Tribunal ruled that expenses reimbursed to C &amp;amp; F agents on an actual basis should not be included in the taxable consideration for service tax purposes. The judgment emphasized the significance of considering actual expenses incurred by agents and highlighted the relevance of case laws in determining tax liability. The overall commission received by the respondent for promoting the client&#039;s business was subject to tax, but as specific findings on untaxed portions were lacking, the impugned order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>