Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
AAR held that nominal amounts recovered from employees for transportation arranged through third-party vendors did not constitute a supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The arrangement was treated as an employee welfare facility, not an activity in the course or furtherance of the applicant's engineering and IT-related business, and the recovery was only partial cost-sharing with no independent consideration accruing to the applicant. The transport facility was also regarded as an employment-linked perquisite covered by Schedule III, and therefore outside the ambit of supply. As the transaction was not taxable, the question of valuation for GST did not arise.
AAR held that nominal amounts recovered from employees for transportation arranged through third-party vendors did not constitute a supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The arrangement was treated as an employee welfare facility, not an activity in the course or furtherance of the applicant's engineering and IT-related business, and the recovery was only partial cost-sharing with no independent consideration accruing to the applicant. The transport facility was also regarded as an employment-linked perquisite covered by Schedule III, and therefore outside the ambit of supply. As the transaction was not taxable, the question of valuation for GST did not arise.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.