<?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>2022 (2) TMI 1124 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418873</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that interest on a security deposit should not be included in the gross value of taxable service as per Section 67 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal cited precedents and Circulars to support this decision. Additionally, the extended period of limitation for issuing the Show Cause Notice was deemed invalid due to the lack of willful suppression of facts. Therefore, the demand for service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2022 12:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=671324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 1124 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418873</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that interest on a security deposit should not be included in the gross value of taxable service as per Section 67 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal cited precedents and Circulars to support this decision. Additionally, the extended period of limitation for issuing the Show Cause Notice was deemed invalid due to the lack of willful suppression of facts. Therefore, the demand for service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>