Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Clinical trial and related R&D services supplied to a foreign recipient raised the issue whether the place of supply was outside India, making the supply an export and not liable to GST, and whether Notification No. 04/2019-IGST dated 30.09.2019 applied retrospectively to the period April 2018-March 2019. The notification clarified that for such services the place of supply is the location of the recipient, subject to conditions; since the recipient was located in the USA, the supply fell in a non-taxable territory. Treating the notification as beneficial, clarificatory and elucidatory, it was held to operate retrospectively, and the contrary view of the authorities was erroneous; the impugned orders were set aside and the petition was allowed - HC
Clinical trial and related R&D services supplied to a foreign recipient raised the issue whether the place of supply was outside India, making the supply an export and not liable to GST, and whether Notification No. 04/2019-IGST dated 30.09.2019 applied retrospectively to the period April 2018-March 2019. The notification clarified that for such services the place of supply is the location of the recipient, subject to conditions; since the recipient was located in the USA, the supply fell in a non-taxable territory. Treating the notification as beneficial, clarificatory and elucidatory, it was held to operate retrospectively, and the contrary view of the authorities was erroneous; the impugned orders were set aside and the petition was allowed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.