Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
