Co-operative deduction eligibility excludes refund and commercial-bank interest, while qualifying co-operative investments require entity-wise verific...
Enhanced tax rate on surrendered unexplained income applies prospectively, while cash-deposit telescoping requires verification of available surrender...
Customs Broker licence proceedings require accurate procedural facts before delay or natural-justice findings can justify setting aside regulatory act...
Provisional assessment finalisation must precede export duty recovery, while redemption fine fails for goods already exported and unavailable for conf...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 96047 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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
