<?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 (7) TMI 560 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774492</link>
    <description>Access to EDA software tools hosted on an overseas holding company&#039;s server was treated as access to information and data in electronic form through a computer network, and the arrangement on a cost-sharing basis was classified as Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval service under the Finance Act, 1994 read with the Information Technology Act, 2000. On limitation, disclosure of the service arrangement and related transactions to the Department, together with refund claims concerning export of services, negatived suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, so the extended period of limitation was unavailable. The demand therefore failed because it was barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 08:39:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=834994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 560 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774492</link>
      <description>Access to EDA software tools hosted on an overseas holding company&#039;s server was treated as access to information and data in electronic form through a computer network, and the arrangement on a cost-sharing basis was classified as Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval service under the Finance Act, 1994 read with the Information Technology Act, 2000. On limitation, disclosure of the service arrangement and related transactions to the Department, together with refund claims concerning export of services, negatived suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, so the extended period of limitation was unavailable. The demand therefore failed because it was barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>