Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Arbitration of SEZ sub-lease monetary claims preserves rent, maintenance, termination, improvements and damages disputes while unused premises are vac...
Scientific research approval grants a research association tax recognition, subject to annual donor reporting, certification, and regulatory complianc...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97820 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 CENVAT Credit - services related to Information Technology (ITSS) - The appellate tribunal analyzed submissions regarding the eligibility for refund on ITSS, the denial of CENVAT credit, denial of credit for service tax paid on generators, and discrepancies between CENVAT records and ST-3 returns. The Tribunal found that while the appellant demonstrated independence from M/s Agilent Technologies (Singapore), they failed to provide evidence of valid orders for ITSS services, leading to the denial of the refund claim. However, they ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the denial of CENVAT credit, credit for service tax paid on generators, and discrepancies between records, remanding these matters for further verification and consideration by the Original Authority.
Refund of CENVAT Credit - services related to Information Technology (ITSS) - The appellate tribunal analyzed submissions regarding the eligibility for refund on ITSS, the denial of CENVAT credit, denial of credit for service tax paid on generators, and discrepancies between CENVAT records and ST-3 returns. The Tribunal found that while the appellant demonstrated independence from M/s Agilent Technologies (Singapore), they failed to provide evidence of valid orders for ITSS services, leading to the denial of the refund claim. However, they ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the denial of CENVAT credit, credit for service tax paid on generators, and discrepancies between records, remanding these matters for further verification and consideration by the Original Authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
