Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Pigmy agents engaged by a bank were treated as employees because the relationship was marked by pervasive control, supervision and disciplinary oversight, with commission functioning in substance as wages. Their services rendered in the course of employment fell within Schedule III read with section 7(2)(a) of the GST law and were therefore neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services. The attempt to classify them as business facilitators liable under reverse charge was rejected, and the show cause notices were quashed for proceeding on an erroneous jurisdictional basis. The challenge to the limitation-extension notifications was left open.
Pigmy agents engaged by a bank were treated as employees because the relationship was marked by pervasive control, supervision and disciplinary oversight, with commission functioning in substance as wages. Their services rendered in the course of employment fell within Schedule III read with section 7(2)(a) of the GST law and were therefore neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services. The attempt to classify them as business facilitators liable under reverse charge was rejected, and the show cause notices were quashed for proceeding on an erroneous jurisdictional basis. The challenge to the limitation-extension notifications was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
