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 High Court held that the demand for tax on the service aspect of a composite supply involving import of goods and related services like transportation and insurance is in violation of Section 2(30) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. M/s.Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the demand confirmed in paragraphs 15(g) and 15(h) of the impugned order was dropped. However, the demand arising from the mismatch between Input Tax Credit availed and tax paid by the supplier, and the demand for tax on renewal charges for the Factory License, can be adjudicated by the petitioner before the Appellate Commissioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the remaining demands confirmed in the impugned order. The writ petition was partly allowed.
The High Court held that the demand for tax on the service aspect of a composite supply involving import of goods and related services like transportation and insurance is in violation of Section 2(30) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. M/s.Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the demand confirmed in paragraphs 15(g) and 15(h) of the impugned order was dropped. However, the demand arising from the mismatch between Input Tax Credit availed and tax paid by the supplier, and the demand for tax on renewal charges for the Factory License, can be adjudicated by the petitioner before the Appellate Commissioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the remaining demands confirmed in the impugned order. The writ petition was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
