<?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 (12) TMI 99 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782559</link>
    <description>CESTAT Bangalore held that services obtained from foreign entities for evaluating cane sugar and biofuels, financial advisory, legal, engineering and technical support for acquisition of a Brazilian sugar factory were classifiable as &quot;Management and Business Consultancy Services.&quot; Under the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006, the appellant, having entered into the agreements and made payments in India, was the service recipient liable to service tax under RCM. The demand of service tax and interest was upheld. However, since the entire tax and interest had been paid prior to issuance of the show-cause notice, penalties under ss. 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 99 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782559</link>
      <description>CESTAT Bangalore held that services obtained from foreign entities for evaluating cane sugar and biofuels, financial advisory, legal, engineering and technical support for acquisition of a Brazilian sugar factory were classifiable as &quot;Management and Business Consultancy Services.&quot; Under the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006, the appellant, having entered into the agreements and made payments in India, was the service recipient liable to service tax under RCM. The demand of service tax and interest was upheld. However, since the entire tax and interest had been paid prior to issuance of the show-cause notice, penalties under ss. 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>