Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Advance ruling jurisdiction under section 97 of the CGST Act does not extend to questions seeking guidance on the sufficiency of documentary evidence for proving that supplies to SEZ units or developers are for authorised operations. The applicant asked whether LOA or eligibility certificate evidence was enough for zero-rated treatment, or whether invoice endorsement by the Specified Officer was mandatory, but the Authority held these issues did not fall within any category listed in section 97(2), such as classification, notification applicability, time or value of supply, input tax credit, tax liability, registration, or whether an activity amounts to supply. It therefore declined to answer all three questions and left the merits of zero-rating and endorsement requirements unexamined.
Advance ruling jurisdiction under section 97 of the CGST Act does not extend to questions seeking guidance on the sufficiency of documentary evidence for proving that supplies to SEZ units or developers are for authorised operations. The applicant asked whether LOA or eligibility certificate evidence was enough for zero-rated treatment, or whether invoice endorsement by the Specified Officer was mandatory, but the Authority held these issues did not fall within any category listed in section 97(2), such as classification, notification applicability, time or value of supply, input tax credit, tax liability, registration, or whether an activity amounts to supply. It therefore declined to answer all three questions and left the merits of zero-rating and endorsement requirements unexamined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
