Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
The case involved the interpretation of Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution regarding the transfer of right of use goods. The High Court examined whether contracts for hiring launch vehicles for a bridge project constituted a sale or a service under Section 65 (105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court held that the contracts were service contracts as the essential elements of a sale were absent. The court emphasized that the control over the vessels remained with the petitioners, making it a service contract. Citing the case of M/s K. P. Mozika, the court concluded that there was no transfer of right of use, and the contracts fell within the ambit of service contracts. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to process the application for refund. The writ petition was allowed.
The case involved the interpretation of Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution regarding the transfer of right of use goods. The High Court examined whether contracts for hiring launch vehicles for a bridge project constituted a sale or a service under Section 65 (105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court held that the contracts were service contracts as the essential elements of a sale were absent. The court emphasized that the control over the vessels remained with the petitioners, making it a service contract. Citing the case of M/s K. P. Mozika, the court concluded that there was no transfer of right of use, and the contracts fell within the ambit of service contracts. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to process the application for refund. The writ petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
