Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
