Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 96046 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 the unutilized ITC of GST Compensation Cess on coal - zero rated supply - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - Vires of Clause 5 of the impugned Notification No. 53/2023 – The court held that the notification’s Clause 5 is clear in its stipulation that no appeal can be filed for issues not involving tax. The court found no grounds to challenge the clause’s constitutional validity. - The court determined that the order was indeed communicated when uploaded on the portal, thus initiating the statutory period for filing appeals. It rejected the petitioner’s claim that the physical receipt of the order marked the start of the appeal period.
Refund of the unutilized ITC of GST Compensation Cess on coal - zero rated supply - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - Vires of Clause 5 of the impugned Notification No. 53/2023 – The court held that the notification’s Clause 5 is clear in its stipulation that no appeal can be filed for issues not involving tax. The court found no grounds to challenge the clause’s constitutional validity. - The court determined that the order was indeed communicated when uploaded on the portal, thus initiating the statutory period for filing appeals. It rejected the petitioner’s claim that the physical receipt of the order marked the start of the appeal period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.