Normally GST is charged on the transaction value of the goods. However, in respect of second hand goods, a person dealing in such goods may be allowed to pay tax on the margin i.e. the difference between the value at which the goods are supplied and the price at which the goods are purchased. If there is no margin, no GST is charged for such supply.
Telengana High Court held that statute has introduced limitation under section 39(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to rectify omission/ error in GSTR-1 return and accordingly assessee cannot be permitted to carry out rectification beyond the statutorily prescribed period.
ITAT Bangalore held that inspite of repeated intimation informing the amalgamation of the assessee, the assessment has been completed on a non-existing i.e. amalgamated company and therefore the the assessment order in the name of amalgamated company is treated as null and void.
Unravel the nuances between SLP Dismissed and Appeal Is Dismissed by the Hon. Supreme Court. Explore the legal distinctions under Article 136 and Article 133 of the Constitution, clarifying the impact and binding nature of each dismissal on lower courts and authorities.
ITAT Chennai held that expenditure of Bio-technology Research & Development cannot be disallowed simply on the allegation that expenditure was incurred before the commencement of a new line of business as such matching concept not application in the present case.
Whereas this office received a communication from Reserve Bank of India vide letter No. DOS.RSS(BLR).No. S91/24.08.028/2022-23 dated 22.04.2022 stating that the letters sent to the subject company to the addressed mentioned in the MCA database were returned undelivered and also that a physical inspection was also made to the premises of the company and it was found that the company was not located at the registered office premises.
The ITAT deleted the adjustment in respect of international transaction of Payment of Interest on Fully Convertible Debentures by upholding the contentions that LIBOR was not applicable as there was no lending/borrowing in foreign currency and assessee had issued rupee dominated debentures.
Supreme Court held that determination/ award of compensation for use and occupation of the premises should be at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn the rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises.
Madras High Court held that order directing forfeiture of property u/s. 7 of the Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 is unsustainable as link or the nexus between the income of the detenue and the acquisition of the property is not established.
In re Pune IT City Metro Rail Limited (CAAR Mumbai) The applicant has sought an Advance Ruling on whether the applicant and Siemens Limited can register the said ‘Project’ and avail the concessional duty benefit under Project Import Regulations under the CTH 9801 with recommendation / sponsoring letter issued by the PMRDA. In this regard […]
