Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Payment of damages under an arbitral award did not amount to a taxable supply under the CGST Act because the settlement before the Delhi High Court was not an independent commercial arrangement to refrain from an act or tolerate a situation. The withdrawal or suspension of enforcement proceedings in the UK and US followed only from full satisfaction of the award and did not create separate consideration or a distinct service. In the absence of an independent contract and consideration, Section 7 and Entry 5(e) of Schedule II were inapplicable, and the IGST charge could not be sustained. The intimation and show cause notice were quashed for lack of jurisdiction, and the writ petition was entertained despite the alternate remedy rule.
Payment of damages under an arbitral award did not amount to a taxable supply under the CGST Act because the settlement before the Delhi High Court was not an independent commercial arrangement to refrain from an act or tolerate a situation. The withdrawal or suspension of enforcement proceedings in the UK and US followed only from full satisfaction of the award and did not create separate consideration or a distinct service. In the absence of an independent contract and consideration, Section 7 and Entry 5(e) of Schedule II were inapplicable, and the IGST charge could not be sustained. The intimation and show cause notice were quashed for lack of jurisdiction, and the writ petition was entertained despite the alternate remedy rule.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.