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...
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...
The High Court examined the constitutional validity of exclusion (iii) to the Explanation to Section 17 of the CGST Act regarding the applicability to service providers. The authorities analyzed the matter from the perspective of definitions of 'plant' and machinery, relying on dictionaries, but did not focus on the functionality test. The Supreme Court held that a fact-finding inquiry is necessary in each case, applying the functionality test. As the Petitioner had yet to establish the requisite infrastructure when the Advance Ruling Authorities decided, the High Court remanded the matter to the AAR for a fresh ruling considering the Supreme Court's observations, given the limited scope of judicial review on factual matters unless perversity is demonstrated. The AAR and Appellate Authority's orders were set aside.
The High Court examined the constitutional validity of exclusion (iii) to the Explanation to Section 17 of the CGST Act regarding the applicability to service providers. The authorities analyzed the matter from the perspective of definitions of 'plant' and machinery, relying on dictionaries, but did not focus on the functionality test. The Supreme Court held that a fact-finding inquiry is necessary in each case, applying the functionality test. As the Petitioner had yet to establish the requisite infrastructure when the Advance Ruling Authorities decided, the High Court remanded the matter to the AAR for a fresh ruling considering the Supreme Court's observations, given the limited scope of judicial review on factual matters unless perversity is demonstrated. The AAR and Appellate Authority's orders were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
