<?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>2024 (12) TMI 1755 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468164</link>
    <description>Service classification turned on the specific statutory entry that accurately described the activity: Global Account Manager functions were treated as business support rather than business auxiliary service, and the corresponding demand failed. Leased circuit charges were held not taxable on the basis proposed in the notices because leased line service was already covered by a specific telecom entry. Royalty paid to the holding company was treated as consideration for transfer of know-how, not management consultancy, so the demand failed. The software licence-related amount required fresh factual verification, but the extended period and penalties were set aside because registration, returns and audit negatived wilful suppression.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 11:03:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1755 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468164</link>
      <description>Service classification turned on the specific statutory entry that accurately described the activity: Global Account Manager functions were treated as business support rather than business auxiliary service, and the corresponding demand failed. Leased circuit charges were held not taxable on the basis proposed in the notices because leased line service was already covered by a specific telecom entry. Royalty paid to the holding company was treated as consideration for transfer of know-how, not management consultancy, so the demand failed. The software licence-related amount required fresh factual verification, but the extended period and penalties were set aside because registration, returns and audit negatived wilful suppression.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>