<?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 (6) TMI 79 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31301</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the respondents were not providing Business Auxiliary Services to banks as they were assisting buyers in obtaining loans and serving the banks&#039; clients, not the banks directly. The Tribunal clarified that the assessees were providing services related to banking and financial services offered by the banks, making the banks their clients. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reconsider the case based on the nature of the arrangement and commission flow, highlighting the importance of examining these aspects thoroughly. The Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the case for further consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 79 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31301</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the respondents were not providing Business Auxiliary Services to banks as they were assisting buyers in obtaining loans and serving the banks&#039; clients, not the banks directly. The Tribunal clarified that the assessees were providing services related to banking and financial services offered by the banks, making the banks their clients. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reconsider the case based on the nature of the arrangement and commission flow, highlighting the importance of examining these aspects thoroughly. The Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the case for further consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>