Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
The High Court held that for a works contract involving construction of a barrage across two states, Telangana and Maharashtra, the place of supply would be determined proportionately based on the value of services rendered in each state as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act. Consequently, the supply would qualify as an intra-state supply u/s 8 of the IGST Act in proportion to the work executed in the respective states by the contractors registered there. The tax liability must be discharged individually in each state commensurate with the work executed therein. The petitioner's refund claim for TDS was rejected due to lack of evidence regarding discharge of tax liability in Maharashtra. However, the High Court allowed the petitioner to approach the adjudicating authority with relevant documents proving tax payment in Maharashtra for reconsideration of the refund claim after due opportunity to both parties.
The High Court held that for a works contract involving construction of a barrage across two states, Telangana and Maharashtra, the place of supply would be determined proportionately based on the value of services rendered in each state as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act. Consequently, the supply would qualify as an intra-state supply u/s 8 of the IGST Act in proportion to the work executed in the respective states by the contractors registered there. The tax liability must be discharged individually in each state commensurate with the work executed therein. The petitioner's refund claim for TDS was rejected due to lack of evidence regarding discharge of tax liability in Maharashtra. However, the High Court allowed the petitioner to approach the adjudicating authority with relevant documents proving tax payment in Maharashtra for reconsideration of the refund claim after due opportunity to both parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
