Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
AAR held that third-party organization marketing exempted yoga courses cannot claim GST exemption on yoga course fees collected on behalf of yoga institutions. While Rule 33 CGST Rules 2017 permits exclusion of amounts collected by pure agents, applicant failed to provide documentary evidence establishing compliance with mandatory conditions including contractual arrangements authorizing expense incurrence, separate invoice indication, and strict cost pass-through without markup. Without demonstrating pure agent status within Rule 33 parameters, GST exemption on yoga course fee component was denied. Organization remains liable for GST on entire transaction value including collected fees despite underlying yoga courses being exempt.
AAR held that third-party organization marketing exempted yoga courses cannot claim GST exemption on yoga course fees collected on behalf of yoga institutions. While Rule 33 CGST Rules 2017 permits exclusion of amounts collected by pure agents, applicant failed to provide documentary evidence establishing compliance with mandatory conditions including contractual arrangements authorizing expense incurrence, separate invoice indication, and strict cost pass-through without markup. Without demonstrating pure agent status within Rule 33 parameters, GST exemption on yoga course fee component was denied. Organization remains liable for GST on entire transaction value including collected fees despite underlying yoga courses being exempt.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
