Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
AAR held that the applicant's share of fees received from skill training partners and fees collected from its own training institutes are liable to GST. The receipts do not qualify for exemption under Entry 69 or Entry 66 of Notif. No. 12/2017-CT(R), as the outsourced training partners are not shown to be NSDC/SSC approved, the courses are not NSQF/NCVET or statute-recognized, and the applicant is not an "educational institution" within para 2(y). Exemption under Sl. No. 4 is also denied as the services are not municipal functions under Art. 243W. On ITC, AAR declined a specific ruling for lack of factual detail but clarified that ITC cannot be denied merely because inputs are funded from a Government grant, subject to s.16 CGST Act conditions.
AAR held that the applicant's share of fees received from skill training partners and fees collected from its own training institutes are liable to GST. The receipts do not qualify for exemption under Entry 69 or Entry 66 of Notif. No. 12/2017-CT(R), as the outsourced training partners are not shown to be NSDC/SSC approved, the courses are not NSQF/NCVET or statute-recognized, and the applicant is not an "educational institution" within para 2(y). Exemption under Sl. No. 4 is also denied as the services are not municipal functions under Art. 243W. On ITC, AAR declined a specific ruling for lack of factual detail but clarified that ITC cannot be denied merely because inputs are funded from a Government grant, subject to s.16 CGST Act conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
