Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The summary focuses on the refund claim rejection based on the ground that the amount paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) is not admissible u/r 9(1)(bb) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and was hence ineligible for transition as input tax credit u/s 142(8)(a) of CGST Act. It highlights that Rule 9(1)(e), not Rule 9(1)(bb), is applicable for RCM payments, and credit cannot be denied, citing the POLYGENTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. case. Regarding transition of credit, it states that u/ss 142 and 140 of the CGST Act, the appellant was eligible for TRAN-1 credit, and the rejection citing non-declaration in Service Tax returns was hyper-technical. Section 142(8)(b) mandates refunding eligible credit in cash. The Adfert Technologies case upheld transitional credit as a vested right. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The summary focuses on the refund claim rejection based on the ground that the amount paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) is not admissible u/r 9(1)(bb) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and was hence ineligible for transition as input tax credit u/s 142(8)(a) of CGST Act. It highlights that Rule 9(1)(e), not Rule 9(1)(bb), is applicable for RCM payments, and credit cannot be denied, citing the POLYGENTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. case. Regarding transition of credit, it states that u/ss 142 and 140 of the CGST Act, the appellant was eligible for TRAN-1 credit, and the rejection citing non-declaration in Service Tax returns was hyper-technical. Section 142(8)(b) mandates refunding eligible credit in cash. The Adfert Technologies case upheld transitional credit as a vested right. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
