Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
IGST exemption at the time of import of input materials by the appellant - Advance Authorization Scheme - The Tribunal acknowledged that while the Advance Authorization was initially issued under Notification No. 18/2005, it was subsequently revised to Notification No. 21/2015. However, considering the appellant's use of the imported goods for manufacturing final products that were exported, and the issuance of discharge certificates by the DGFT confirming export obligations, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant should be entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 18/2015–CUS. Additionally, it noted the contributory negligence on the part of Revenue for allowing IGST exemption under Notification No. 18/2015–CUS. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand for IGST exemption was not sustainable.
IGST exemption at the time of import of input materials by the appellant - Advance Authorization Scheme - The Tribunal acknowledged that while the Advance Authorization was initially issued under Notification No. 18/2005, it was subsequently revised to Notification No. 21/2015. However, considering the appellant's use of the imported goods for manufacturing final products that were exported, and the issuance of discharge certificates by the DGFT confirming export obligations, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant should be entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 18/2015–CUS. Additionally, it noted the contributory negligence on the part of Revenue for allowing IGST exemption under Notification No. 18/2015–CUS. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand for IGST exemption was not sustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
