<?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>2009 (3) TMI 24 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32718</link>
    <description>Service tax on consulting engineer services received in India from foreign companies with no office in India was not payable by the recipient for the period prior to 1-1-2005. The controlling principle applied was that liability for such services arose only from that date, and the amendment in Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules did not fasten tax liability on the recipient for the earlier period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 24 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32718</link>
      <description>Service tax on consulting engineer services received in India from foreign companies with no office in India was not payable by the recipient for the period prior to 1-1-2005. The controlling principle applied was that liability for such services arose only from that date, and the amendment in Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules did not fasten tax liability on the recipient for the earlier period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>