Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the classification of aerated drinks and fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks under different brand names. The issue was whether to classify them under Tariff Heading 2202 9020 or Chapter Sub-heading 22021020 for the period April 2011 to August 2012. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and a decision by a Larger Bench, concluding that the products in question are classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 90 20 as "fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks." The Tribunal disagreed with a previous decision cited by the Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant.
CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the classification of aerated drinks and fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks under different brand names. The issue was whether to classify them under Tariff Heading 2202 9020 or Chapter Sub-heading 22021020 for the period April 2011 to August 2012. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and a decision by a Larger Bench, concluding that the products in question are classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 90 20 as "fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks." The Tribunal disagreed with a previous decision cited by the Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
