Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
