<?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 37 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32789</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision to allow the credit on mobile phone bills claimed by the respondent company engaged in Industrial Construction services. Despite the Revenue&#039;s argument that the mobile phones were used for personal purposes by employees, the Tribunal found that the phones were utilized by full-time directors for business activities, supported by bank statements showing payment by the respondent company. As the Revenue failed to disprove the business use of the phones, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the eligibility of the credit for the respondent company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 37 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32789</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision to allow the credit on mobile phone bills claimed by the respondent company engaged in Industrial Construction services. Despite the Revenue&#039;s argument that the mobile phones were used for personal purposes by employees, the Tribunal found that the phones were utilized by full-time directors for business activities, supported by bank statements showing payment by the respondent company. As the Revenue failed to disprove the business use of the phones, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the eligibility of the credit for the respondent company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>