Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
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.