Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
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...
The appellant's activity of subscription and redemption of mutual fund units cannot be considered as trading of securities, thus not qualifying as an exempted service u/s 66D(e) of the Finance Act. Additionally, investment in mutual funds does not constitute a 'service' u/s 65B(44) of the Finance Act, as there is no service provider rendering a service to a recipient for consideration. Consequently, proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit availed on common input services was not required. The extended period of limitation invoked by the department was unjustified, as the responsibility to scrutinize returns and make correct assessments lies with the officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellant's activity of subscription and redemption of mutual fund units cannot be considered as trading of securities, thus not qualifying as an exempted service u/s 66D(e) of the Finance Act. Additionally, investment in mutual funds does not constitute a 'service' u/s 65B(44) of the Finance Act, as there is no service provider rendering a service to a recipient for consideration. Consequently, proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit availed on common input services was not required. The extended period of limitation invoked by the department was unjustified, as the responsibility to scrutinize returns and make correct assessments lies with the officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
