Learn to manage GST invoices easily with the new IMS. Join our webinar on 24th Nov to improve ITC claims and error reduction. Register now!
The Tribunal has erred in holding that the Rules are merely procedural or directory in nature and upholding the grant of exemption to the Assessee in respect of Bill of Entry No. 550344 dated June 28th, 2003 by which the goods were imported and cleared on June 30th, 2003.
Star India (P) Ltd. Vs Society of Catalysts (Supreme Court) It is apparent that the crucial question to be determined in the instant case is whether an unfair trade practice has been committed by the Appellants in the conduct of the HSHS contest, in terms of Section 2(1)(r)(3) of the 1986 Act. We hasten to […]
Following changes are made to the Directions governing investment through the Voluntary Retention Route (VRR). a) The investment cap is increased to 1,50,000 crores from Rs. 75,000 crores. b) FPIs that have been allotted investment limits under VRR may, at their discretion, transfer their investments made under the General Investment Limit to VRR. c) FPIs are also allowed to invest in Exchange Traded Funds that invest only in debt instruments.
In terms of paragraph 4(b) (i) of the Directions, short-term investments by an FPI shall not exceed 20% of the total investment of that FPI in either Central Government Securities (including Treasury Bills) or State Development Loans. This short-term investment limit is hereby increased from 20% to 30%.
Reserve Bank of India RBI/2019-20/152 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 20 January 23, 2020 To All Category – I Authorised Dealer Banks Madam / Sir Merchanting Trade Transactions (MTT) – Revised Guidelines Attention of Authorised Dealer Category-I banks (AD banks) is invited to A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.115 dated March 28, 2014 containing directions relating to merchanting […]
(i) Stakeholders may please note that as part of Government of India’s Ease of Doing Business (EODB) initiatives, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs would be shortly notifying & deploying a new Web Form christened ‘SPICe+’ (pronounced ‘SPICe Plus’) replacing the existing SPICe form. (ii) SPICe+ would be an integrated Web form offering multiple services viz. […]
How to resolve technical Error while uploading GSTR 9C Errors while uploading the GSTR 9C JSON file ♣ Error Occurred The most common error it’s showed on the website while we uploading the GSTR 9C, this error may come due to GSTR 9C Form format are not matching with their standard. This error may be […]
It is a case where a vehicle alongwith goods were seized when it was found carrying goods in violation of the Act of 2017. The petitioner alongwith owner of the goods was served with the notice before seizure of the goods.
As you are aware, several cases of monetisation of credit fraudulently obtained or ineligible credit through refund of Integrated Goods & Service Tax (IGST) on exports of goods have been detected in past few months. On verification, several such exporters were found to be non-existent in a number of cases. In all these cases it has been found that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) was taken by the exporters on the basis of fake invoices and IGST on exports was paid using such ITC.
Revision under section 263 by PCIT was not justified as all the four issues questioned by PCIT were thoroughly examined by AO during the assessment proceedings, and after considering relevant facts and explanations furnished by assessee had chosen to accept the claim of the assessee and hence, the same could not be termed as non consideration of issues or AO had failed to carry out required enquiries, which ought to have been carried out in accordance with law. Thus, the assessment order passed by AO was neither erroneous, nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
