Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Interim judicial restraint on tax deduction prevents default, while supporting reasonable cause and penalty deletion for foreign-leg LFC reimbursement...
Palmolein classification defeated the crude-oil concession; material misdeclaration sustained recovery and confiscation, while separate false-document...
AAR ruled that supply of Mobile Veterinary Unit (MVU) personnel on contractual basis for implementing veterinary healthcare schemes does not qualify for GST exemption under N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The authority distinguished between direct veterinary services and manpower supply, noting that the applicant merely provides contractual staff to the implementing agency rather than operating as a veterinary clinic. The ruling established that two separate supplies occur: first between applicant and implementing agency, then between agency and government department. Since the applicant's service constitutes manpower supply rather than direct veterinary healthcare, it falls outside the scope of exemptions under notification entries 3, 3A, 5, 6, and 46.
AAR ruled that supply of Mobile Veterinary Unit (MVU) personnel on contractual basis for implementing veterinary healthcare schemes does not qualify for GST exemption under N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The authority distinguished between direct veterinary services and manpower supply, noting that the applicant merely provides contractual staff to the implementing agency rather than operating as a veterinary clinic. The ruling established that two separate supplies occur: first between applicant and implementing agency, then between agency and government department. Since the applicant's service constitutes manpower supply rather than direct veterinary healthcare, it falls outside the scope of exemptions under notification entries 3, 3A, 5, 6, and 46.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
