https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444994 CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was entitled to benefit of Notification No. 17/2004-ST despite paying service tax under Section 66A on reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal held that denial of notification benefit solely because service tax was discharged under Section 66A was incorrect, following precedent from Mumbai Bench. Additionally, TDS amount paid by appellant to Income Tax department could not be included in gross taxable value for service tax calculation, as it did not form part of consideration for overseas services. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Thu, 26 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Oct 2023 08:33:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444994 CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was entitled to benefit of Notification No. 17/2004-ST despite paying service tax under Section 66A on reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal held that denial of notification benefit solely because service tax was discharged under Section 66A was incorrect, following precedent from Mumbai Bench. Additionally, TDS amount paid by appellant to Income Tax department could not be included in gross taxable value for service tax calculation, as it did not form part of consideration for overseas services. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 26 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444994