Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The AAAR held that the time limit for passing an order u/s 101 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not mandatory, and the word 'shall' should be interpreted in an advisory manner to avoid denying the right of appeal. The appeals were filed within the statutory period and not barred by limitation. Manual filing of appeals is allowed u/r 107A of the CGST Rules, 2017. Both central and state GST authorities are proper authorities to file an appeal against an advance ruling. The appellant can revisit their stance taken before the AAR, and the principle of estoppel does not apply. The preliminary objections raised by the respondent were rejected, and the appeals were held maintainable to be decided on merits. The case pertains to the valuation of GTA services and inclusion of the value of diesel provided by the service recipient.
The AAAR held that the time limit for passing an order u/s 101 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not mandatory, and the word 'shall' should be interpreted in an advisory manner to avoid denying the right of appeal. The appeals were filed within the statutory period and not barred by limitation. Manual filing of appeals is allowed u/r 107A of the CGST Rules, 2017. Both central and state GST authorities are proper authorities to file an appeal against an advance ruling. The appellant can revisit their stance taken before the AAR, and the principle of estoppel does not apply. The preliminary objections raised by the respondent were rejected, and the appeals were held maintainable to be decided on merits. The case pertains to the valuation of GTA services and inclusion of the value of diesel provided by the service recipient.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
