Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The assessee, a company registered u/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, with the main objective of supporting and promoting the export of gems and related activities, was denied exemption u/s 11 by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO considered the exhibition activities conducted by the assessee as commercial, inferring a profit motive. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee's main object was covered u/s 2(15) and the AO failed to point out any deviations. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's activities were for the promotion of trade and business of its members, and the revenue could not establish any business transactions during the exhibitions. Relying on its own earlier orders, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 11 for the assessment year in question, and the denial of carry forward of deficit from earlier years was contrary to the jurisdictional High Court's binding judgment.
The assessee, a company registered u/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, with the main objective of supporting and promoting the export of gems and related activities, was denied exemption u/s 11 by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO considered the exhibition activities conducted by the assessee as commercial, inferring a profit motive. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee's main object was covered u/s 2(15) and the AO failed to point out any deviations. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's activities were for the promotion of trade and business of its members, and the revenue could not establish any business transactions during the exhibitions. Relying on its own earlier orders, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 11 for the assessment year in question, and the denial of carry forward of deficit from earlier years was contrary to the jurisdictional High Court's binding judgment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.