Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
This case pertains to the liability of an appellant to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on a reverse charge basis for two specific services: supply of services by the Managing Director through personal guarantees on loans obtained by the company, and supply of services by extending loans from the petitioner-company to its subsidiary. The High Court held that Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST and Circular No. 218/12/2024-GST issued by the Central Board are binding on the authorities. The respondent department's counsel did not dispute the applicability of these circulars to the issues raised. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice.
This case pertains to the liability of an appellant to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on a reverse charge basis for two specific services: supply of services by the Managing Director through personal guarantees on loans obtained by the company, and supply of services by extending loans from the petitioner-company to its subsidiary. The High Court held that Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST and Circular No. 218/12/2024-GST issued by the Central Board are binding on the authorities. The respondent department's counsel did not dispute the applicability of these circulars to the issues raised. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
