<?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>Foreign GDR/FCCB issuance services taxable under reverse charge; TV ad time taxable, but tax demands time-barred</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93653</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that services procured abroad relating to GDR/FCCB issuance constitute &quot;banking and other financial services&quot; and, being received by a recipient located in India for business, were taxable under the reverse charge mechanism; the appellant&#039;s contention of non-receipt of services was rejected. The Tribunal also upheld service taxability of receipts for sale of television time as &quot;sale of space or time for advertisement,&quot; confirming the impugned demand. However, CESTAT concluded the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, found no suppression, and held the demands barred by the statutory limitation; consequently the tax demands were set aside on limitation grounds and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:22:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:22:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Foreign GDR/FCCB issuance services taxable under reverse charge; TV ad time taxable, but tax demands time-barred</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93653</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that services procured abroad relating to GDR/FCCB issuance constitute &quot;banking and other financial services&quot; and, being received by a recipient located in India for business, were taxable under the reverse charge mechanism; the appellant&#039;s contention of non-receipt of services was rejected. The Tribunal also upheld service taxability of receipts for sale of television time as &quot;sale of space or time for advertisement,&quot; confirming the impugned demand. However, CESTAT concluded the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, found no suppression, and held the demands barred by the statutory limitation; consequently the tax demands were set aside on limitation grounds and the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:22:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>