<?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 (10) TMI 734 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779938</link>
    <description>An institute conducting computer education leading to recognised qualifications was outside the taxable category of commercial training or coaching, and the exemption applied because the courses were affiliated to a recognised university and the receipts were facilitative, not service consideration. Grants-in-aid received for Government welfare schemes were excluded from taxable value because they did not represent consideration for services. The principal employer&#039;s provident fund contribution was also not includible in gross value for manpower supply, as it was a statutory remittance and not an amount received by the assessee for the service. A demand under business auxiliary service failed for want of a specific allegation in the show cause notice, and the extended period of limitation was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:30:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 734 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779938</link>
      <description>An institute conducting computer education leading to recognised qualifications was outside the taxable category of commercial training or coaching, and the exemption applied because the courses were affiliated to a recognised university and the receipts were facilitative, not service consideration. Grants-in-aid received for Government welfare schemes were excluded from taxable value because they did not represent consideration for services. The principal employer&#039;s provident fund contribution was also not includible in gross value for manpower supply, as it was a statutory remittance and not an amount received by the assessee for the service. A demand under business auxiliary service failed for want of a specific allegation in the show cause notice, and the extended period of limitation was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>