Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
