<?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>2026 (5) TMI 1094 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791892</link>
    <description>Delayed payment charges in stock broking were treated as compensatory receipts linked to the broker&#039;s use of its own funds to settle client trades; they were viewed as relating to interest or the time value of money, not as consideration for tolerating an act, and the demand and penalty on that component were set aside. Delayed payment charges for DEMAT account services were treated as consideration for tolerating delay in payment, not as interest arising from an advance, loan or deposit, so the negative list did not apply; the demand was upheld, extended limitation was invoked, and equal penalty under section 78 was sustained to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1094 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791892</link>
      <description>Delayed payment charges in stock broking were treated as compensatory receipts linked to the broker&#039;s use of its own funds to settle client trades; they were viewed as relating to interest or the time value of money, not as consideration for tolerating an act, and the demand and penalty on that component were set aside. Delayed payment charges for DEMAT account services were treated as consideration for tolerating delay in payment, not as interest arising from an advance, loan or deposit, so the negative list did not apply; the demand was upheld, extended limitation was invoked, and equal penalty under section 78 was sustained to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>