Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
The HC allows the petition, quashes and sets aside the impugned appellate orders dated 29 Sept 2023, and restores the order dated 22 Sept 2022 issued by respondent No.3, thereby directing sanction of the refund claim. The court finds that the Appellate Authority erred by disregarding that the petitioner had furnished Bank Realisation Certificates and corroborating documents evidencing foreign remittance and invoice particulars as required under Rule 89(2)(c) of the GST Rules. The HC holds the findings of the Appellate Authority are contrary to the record, noting respondent No.3's verification recorded in Form GST RFD-06, and concludes the petitioner complied with statutory documentary requirements for zero-rated supplies.
The HC allows the petition, quashes and sets aside the impugned appellate orders dated 29 Sept 2023, and restores the order dated 22 Sept 2022 issued by respondent No.3, thereby directing sanction of the refund claim. The court finds that the Appellate Authority erred by disregarding that the petitioner had furnished Bank Realisation Certificates and corroborating documents evidencing foreign remittance and invoice particulars as required under Rule 89(2)(c) of the GST Rules. The HC holds the findings of the Appellate Authority are contrary to the record, noting respondent No.3's verification recorded in Form GST RFD-06, and concludes the petitioner complied with statutory documentary requirements for zero-rated supplies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
