<?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>2025 (2) TMI 901 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766354</link>
    <description>CESTAT Hyderabad upheld service tax demands against an Indian company providing IT services through USA-based subcontractors. The tribunal confirmed that under section 66A, services received by Indian entities from abroad are taxable regardless of consumption location, rejecting the appellant&#039;s argument that services consumed entirely in USA were exempt. Demands were sustained for manpower recruitment services, business auxiliary services on referral fees to USA providers, and business support services to BSNL. The tribunal found the liaison office was merely an extension of the Indian company, validating extended limitation period and penalties. Appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 08:05:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=800925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 901 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766354</link>
      <description>CESTAT Hyderabad upheld service tax demands against an Indian company providing IT services through USA-based subcontractors. The tribunal confirmed that under section 66A, services received by Indian entities from abroad are taxable regardless of consumption location, rejecting the appellant&#039;s argument that services consumed entirely in USA were exempt. Demands were sustained for manpower recruitment services, business auxiliary services on referral fees to USA providers, and business support services to BSNL. The tribunal found the liaison office was merely an extension of the Indian company, validating extended limitation period and penalties. Appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>