Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC upheld the vires of clause (g) of section 2(23) of the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003, confirming that the supply of medicines, stents, implants, and consumables during indoor patient treatment constitutes a "works contract" and is subject to tax as a "deemed sale" under the 46th Constitutional Amendment and relevant Apex Court precedents. The Court rejected the petitioner hospitals' argument that medical treatment transactions fall outside the scope of works contracts, emphasizing that such composite contracts involving supply of goods and services are taxable. The decision aligns with the principle that ownership of goods can transfer under contract or statute without physical accretion, and that hospital services including supply of goods form a single economic supply. Consequently, the demand for tax on these supplies was upheld, and the petition was dismissed.
The HC upheld the vires of clause (g) of section 2(23) of the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003, confirming that the supply of medicines, stents, implants, and consumables during indoor patient treatment constitutes a "works contract" and is subject to tax as a "deemed sale" under the 46th Constitutional Amendment and relevant Apex Court precedents. The Court rejected the petitioner hospitals' argument that medical treatment transactions fall outside the scope of works contracts, emphasizing that such composite contracts involving supply of goods and services are taxable. The decision aligns with the principle that ownership of goods can transfer under contract or statute without physical accretion, and that hospital services including supply of goods form a single economic supply. Consequently, the demand for tax on these supplies was upheld, and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
