Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Advance ruling sought on eligibility for refund of unutilised input tax credit arising from an inverted duty structure for manufacture and outward supply of cotton yarn; AAR holds that refund query falls outside the enumerated matters under the provision governing advance rulings and is therefore not maintainable, resulting in rejection of the application. AAR further finds the application inadmissible because the applicant is a consultant raising questions on behalf of a client and the question does not relate to supplies undertaken or proposed by the applicant; outcome: application liable to be rejected. AAR notes advance rulings may be void ab initio if obtained by fraud or suppression and that rulings bind the applicant and concerned officer.
Advance ruling sought on eligibility for refund of unutilised input tax credit arising from an inverted duty structure for manufacture and outward supply of cotton yarn; AAR holds that refund query falls outside the enumerated matters under the provision governing advance rulings and is therefore not maintainable, resulting in rejection of the application. AAR further finds the application inadmissible because the applicant is a consultant raising questions on behalf of a client and the question does not relate to supplies undertaken or proposed by the applicant; outcome: application liable to be rejected. AAR notes advance rulings may be void ab initio if obtained by fraud or suppression and that rulings bind the applicant and concerned officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.