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...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that considering the declaration issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited stating they had discharged GST liability under RCM on services availed from the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to take advantage of the same. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for re-adjudication considering this subsequent development. The HC observed that while issuing show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer had relied upon an Advance Ruling Authority decision which held that the activity in question was not covered under SAC 9991 and should be taxed at 18%. The orders of the Appellate and Original Authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC held that considering the declaration issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited stating they had discharged GST liability under RCM on services availed from the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to take advantage of the same. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for re-adjudication considering this subsequent development. The HC observed that while issuing show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer had relied upon an Advance Ruling Authority decision which held that the activity in question was not covered under SAC 9991 and should be taxed at 18%. The orders of the Appellate and Original Authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.