Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1101 to 1120 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The petitioner's tax liability for the period 01.04.2021 to 01.01.2022 was in question. The court examined whether the respondent entity qualified as a government entity and whether the works executed by the petitioner met any of the conditions for concessional tax rate under N/N. 24/2017. The court held that the works aimed to create infrastructure for entrepreneurs and manufacturing units, and the respondent entity, though a government entity, conducted business by developing industrial parks and recovering costs from entrepreneurs. Therefore, none of the conditions for concessional rate applied, and the tax assessment at 18% by the respondent for the said period was upheld. The arrangement between the petitioner and respondent entity was that the latter would pay the tax due to the petitioner, who would then remit it to the GST Department. The HC disposed of the writ petition, affirming the impugned order for the tax period 01.04.2021 to 30.11.2022.
The petitioner's tax liability for the period 01.04.2021 to 01.01.2022 was in question. The court examined whether the respondent entity qualified as a government entity and whether the works executed by the petitioner met any of the conditions for concessional tax rate under N/N. 24/2017. The court held that the works aimed to create infrastructure for entrepreneurs and manufacturing units, and the respondent entity, though a government entity, conducted business by developing industrial parks and recovering costs from entrepreneurs. Therefore, none of the conditions for concessional rate applied, and the tax assessment at 18% by the respondent for the said period was upheld. The arrangement between the petitioner and respondent entity was that the latter would pay the tax due to the petitioner, who would then remit it to the GST Department. The HC disposed of the writ petition, affirming the impugned order for the tax period 01.04.2021 to 30.11.2022.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
