Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Refund of Service Tax - Service Tax paid for construction of residential complex - because of availability of 13 floors, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to reach at a conclusion that the complex had less than 12 residential units to admit refund as the said was not taxable. However, going by the Architect certificate at annexure 3, floor plan referred above and the full occupation certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (building proposal) of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai dated 02.08.2013 would clearly indicate that the complex comprised of 9 residential units, taking each duplex to be counted as one unit. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the refund sought for. - AT
Refund of Service Tax - Service Tax paid for construction of residential complex - because of availability of 13 floors, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to reach at a conclusion that the complex had less than 12 residential units to admit refund as the said was not taxable. However, going by the Architect certificate at annexure 3, floor plan referred above and the full occupation certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (building proposal) of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai dated 02.08.2013 would clearly indicate that the complex comprised of 9 residential units, taking each duplex to be counted as one unit. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the refund sought for. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.