Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
E-rickshaw supplies in CKD/SKD form qualify for GST treatment as the finished electrically operated vehicle only when all components needed to assemble a complete vehicle are supplied together as one identifiable kit or package, and the consignment contents and contemporaneous commercial records consistently match that description. The AAAR rejected the motor-plus-three-components test because it does not arise from Rule 2(a), the tariff, or the rate notification, and held that individual parts cannot be classified as the finished vehicle merely because some are essential components. It also noted that customs interpretative fiction under Rule 2(a) has a limited scope and cannot be extended beyond customs classification.
E-rickshaw supplies in CKD/SKD form qualify for GST treatment as the finished electrically operated vehicle only when all components needed to assemble a complete vehicle are supplied together as one identifiable kit or package, and the consignment contents and contemporaneous commercial records consistently match that description. The AAAR rejected the motor-plus-three-components test because it does not arise from Rule 2(a), the tariff, or the rate notification, and held that individual parts cannot be classified as the finished vehicle merely because some are essential components. It also noted that customs interpretative fiction under Rule 2(a) has a limited scope and cannot be extended beyond customs classification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.