Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reversal of CENVAT credit u/r 6(3A)(c)(iii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It clarifies that the term 'total CENVAT credit taken' used in the provision is unambiguous and should be interpreted as 'common input services taken' during the financial year, not the total CENVAT credit. The court held that the distortion in the old Rules was cured to ensure manufacturers/service providers do not pay reverse/pay excess amounts u/r 6(3A)(c)(ii). The trading activities carried out were considered "exempted service" within the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, both before and after the amendment. The relevant provisions, Rules 2(e) and 6, underwent changes, addressing the distortion arising from strict application of the old format. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, entitling the appellant to consequential relief, if any.
Reversal of CENVAT credit u/r 6(3A)(c)(iii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It clarifies that the term 'total CENVAT credit taken' used in the provision is unambiguous and should be interpreted as 'common input services taken' during the financial year, not the total CENVAT credit. The court held that the distortion in the old Rules was cured to ensure manufacturers/service providers do not pay reverse/pay excess amounts u/r 6(3A)(c)(ii). The trading activities carried out were considered "exempted service" within the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, both before and after the amendment. The relevant provisions, Rules 2(e) and 6, underwent changes, addressing the distortion arising from strict application of the old format. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, entitling the appellant to consequential relief, if any.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
