Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The dominant issue was whether advances/deposits written off under "administrative expenses" pursuant to a settlement with an associated party were allowable as revenue deduction under s.37(1) or as business loss under s.28, or were in substance capital outlay for acquisition of an MRI machine. The appellate authority had allowed the claim without examining whether any expenditure or business loss actually arose in the course of business, whether the assessee was in the business of advancing loans, whether there was any attempt to procure the alleged capital asset, and whether the timing and substance of successive agreements supported a genuine business transaction; it also relied on inapplicable precedents and did not consider the binding decision cited by the Revenue. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. - ITAT
The dominant issue was whether advances/deposits written off under "administrative expenses" pursuant to a settlement with an associated party were allowable as revenue deduction under s.37(1) or as business loss under s.28, or were in substance capital outlay for acquisition of an MRI machine. The appellate authority had allowed the claim without examining whether any expenditure or business loss actually arose in the course of business, whether the assessee was in the business of advancing loans, whether there was any attempt to procure the alleged capital asset, and whether the timing and substance of successive agreements supported a genuine business transaction; it also relied on inapplicable precedents and did not consider the binding decision cited by the Revenue. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, and the Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
