<?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>2008 (4) TMI 168 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30816</link>
    <description>A separate legal entity providing organised financial, managerial, advisory and consultancy support to group companies may fall within management consultancy service where the advice improves organisational efficiency, planning, MIS, finance, human resources and related systems. The use of group meetings or internal coordination does not take such activity outside the statutory definition, and mutuality is inapplicable where the parties are distinct legal persons in a client-consultant relationship. Suppression of the nature of activities and recovery of consideration supported invocation of the extended limitation period, and the plea of bona fide belief failed. Penalties were upheld for lack of reasonable cause, and the tax demand on the gross amount was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 168 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30816</link>
      <description>A separate legal entity providing organised financial, managerial, advisory and consultancy support to group companies may fall within management consultancy service where the advice improves organisational efficiency, planning, MIS, finance, human resources and related systems. The use of group meetings or internal coordination does not take such activity outside the statutory definition, and mutuality is inapplicable where the parties are distinct legal persons in a client-consultant relationship. Suppression of the nature of activities and recovery of consideration supported invocation of the extended limitation period, and the plea of bona fide belief failed. Penalties were upheld for lack of reasonable cause, and the tax demand on the gross amount was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>