Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the petitioners, being 100% EOUs making zero-rated supplies under LUT, are exporters and not "deemed exporters" under s.2(39) r/w s.147 of the GST Act. Since their suppliers treated supplies as regular B2B and did not follow deemed export procedure or claim deemed export benefits, para 2.2 of Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST and Rule 89(4A) are inapplicable. The petitioners correctly claimed refund of unutilised ITC under s.54(3) r/w Rule 89(1)/89(4). The authorities' reliance on the Circular with retrospective effect and exercise of suo motu review under s.107(2) to deny or revisit sanctioned refunds was held unsustainable. The HC allowed the petitions, restoring the refund claims of unutilised ITC.
HC held that the petitioners, being 100% EOUs making zero-rated supplies under LUT, are exporters and not "deemed exporters" under s.2(39) r/w s.147 of the GST Act. Since their suppliers treated supplies as regular B2B and did not follow deemed export procedure or claim deemed export benefits, para 2.2 of Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST and Rule 89(4A) are inapplicable. The petitioners correctly claimed refund of unutilised ITC under s.54(3) r/w Rule 89(1)/89(4). The authorities' reliance on the Circular with retrospective effect and exercise of suo motu review under s.107(2) to deny or revisit sanctioned refunds was held unsustainable. The HC allowed the petitions, restoring the refund claims of unutilised ITC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
