Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
The AAR held that the applicant, a not-for-profit entity incorporated under the Companies Act, 1882 and presently governed by s. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, qualifies as a "company" and hence a "body corporate" under the Companies Act, 2013. It is neither a co-operative society nor a body corporate notified for exclusion. Consequently, for sponsorship services supplied by the applicant to recipients in the taxable territory, the applicant falls within the expression "body corporate" in the relevant GST notifications. Such sponsorship services do not fall under reverse charge; GST liability is to be discharged by the applicant on a forward charge basis.
The AAR held that the applicant, a not-for-profit entity incorporated under the Companies Act, 1882 and presently governed by s. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, qualifies as a "company" and hence a "body corporate" under the Companies Act, 2013. It is neither a co-operative society nor a body corporate notified for exclusion. Consequently, for sponsorship services supplied by the applicant to recipients in the taxable territory, the applicant falls within the expression "body corporate" in the relevant GST notifications. Such sponsorship services do not fall under reverse charge; GST liability is to be discharged by the applicant on a forward charge basis.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.