Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
