Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court addressed the issue of determining the value of supply in a job work scenario, challenging an order u/s 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner received goods for job work from outside the state, but faced interception and detention while returning the consignment after completion. The Court noted that if the value of supply cannot be determined u/s 15(1), it should be as prescribed. The petitioner did not disclose the contract, affecting value determination. The proper officer did not assess the transaction value under Section 15(1). The Court remanded the matter to the appellate authority for reevaluation, directing the petitioner to disclose all job work documents within 3 weeks. Petition disposed off.
The High Court addressed the issue of determining the value of supply in a job work scenario, challenging an order u/s 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner received goods for job work from outside the state, but faced interception and detention while returning the consignment after completion. The Court noted that if the value of supply cannot be determined u/s 15(1), it should be as prescribed. The petitioner did not disclose the contract, affecting value determination. The proper officer did not assess the transaction value under Section 15(1). The Court remanded the matter to the appellate authority for reevaluation, directing the petitioner to disclose all job work documents within 3 weeks. Petition disposed off.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
