Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The AAR held that the applicant's product classified under tariff heading 2302.10 as "cattle feed" qualifies for GST exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), S. No. 102, only when supplied for direct feeding to cattle. However, when the product is used as an ingredient to produce a new feed with enhanced nutritive value and not fed directly to animals, it loses the character of "cattle feed" and thus does not qualify for exemption. Regarding the documentation required from customers to claim exemption, the AAR found the query outside its jurisdiction under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, and accordingly declined to issue any ruling on that matter.
The AAR held that the applicant's product classified under tariff heading 2302.10 as "cattle feed" qualifies for GST exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), S. No. 102, only when supplied for direct feeding to cattle. However, when the product is used as an ingredient to produce a new feed with enhanced nutritive value and not fed directly to animals, it loses the character of "cattle feed" and thus does not qualify for exemption. Regarding the documentation required from customers to claim exemption, the AAR found the query outside its jurisdiction under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, and accordingly declined to issue any ruling on that matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
