Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The AAR held that the Applicant is not entitled to input tax credit for GST paid on fire-fighting systems and public-health equipment installed as part of a new factory. The installations were characterized as permanently affixed to immovable property and thus not "plant and machinery," bringing the supply within the embargoes of s.17(5)(c) and, alternatively, s.17(5)(d) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017; GST attributable to the composite works contract is therefore non-creditable. Because ITC denial on the specific contract is dispositive, the AAR declined to adjudicate the ancillary question on the timing for availing ITC against supplier "advance component" invoices.
The AAR held that the Applicant is not entitled to input tax credit for GST paid on fire-fighting systems and public-health equipment installed as part of a new factory. The installations were characterized as permanently affixed to immovable property and thus not "plant and machinery," bringing the supply within the embargoes of s.17(5)(c) and, alternatively, s.17(5)(d) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017; GST attributable to the composite works contract is therefore non-creditable. Because ITC denial on the specific contract is dispositive, the AAR declined to adjudicate the ancillary question on the timing for availing ITC against supplier "advance component" invoices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.