Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96091 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rejection of refund claim - Status of the Subsidiary as a Distinct Person - Export of software development services - The High Court examined the provisions of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 and the arguments presented by both parties. It concluded that the interpretation placed by the first respondent was incorrect. The Court affirmed that the petitioner and its subsidiary are distinct entities, fulfilling the requirements of Section 2(6)(v) of the Act. - Regarding the status of the subsidiary, the Court noted that Circular No.161/17/2021-GST clarifies that a company incorporated in India and a foreign company are separate legal entities under the CGST Act. Thus, the Court held that the subsidiary should not be considered merely an establishment of a distinct person under Explanation 1 of Section 8 of the IGST Act, 2017. - Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the second respondent to process the refund claim along with applicable interest.
Rejection of refund claim - Status of the Subsidiary as a Distinct Person - Export of software development services - The High Court examined the provisions of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 and the arguments presented by both parties. It concluded that the interpretation placed by the first respondent was incorrect. The Court affirmed that the petitioner and its subsidiary are distinct entities, fulfilling the requirements of Section 2(6)(v) of the Act. - Regarding the status of the subsidiary, the Court noted that Circular No.161/17/2021-GST clarifies that a company incorporated in India and a foreign company are separate legal entities under the CGST Act. Thus, the Court held that the subsidiary should not be considered merely an establishment of a distinct person under Explanation 1 of Section 8 of the IGST Act, 2017. - Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the second respondent to process the refund claim along with applicable interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
