The Tribunal examined whether demonetisation cash deposits linked to recorded business sales could be taxed as unexplained income. It ruled that once the source is established through books, addition under Section 68 is unsustainable.
The applicant withdrew its advance ruling request citing the need for further testing of its bio-diesel product. The Authority disposed of the application without addressing GST classification or rates. The case highlights that no ruling is issued when applications are withdrawn.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to specify underreporting or misreporting in notice invalidates penalty. Proper identification of charge is mandatory for valid proceedings.
The issue involved classification of panels used in interior decoration. The ruling emphasized functional role and structural characteristics as key determinants.
The authority permitted withdrawal as no ruling had been issued at the time of request. The decision confirms that applicants can withdraw applications prior to pronouncement under Regulation 20.
The Tribunal held that no profiteering occurred as the ITC-to-purchase value ratio declined after GST implementation. It ruled that no additional benefit arose, eliminating the obligation to pass on ITC benefits to buyers.
The case examined GST applicability on digital marketing training services. The ruling held that NSDC-approved training partners are eligible for exemption under Entry 69.
The ruling examines whether construction services for machinery foundations qualify for ITC. It holds that such foundations are integral to plant and machinery and not barred under Section 17(5). The decision clarifies eligibility where structures directly support manufacturing equipment.
The issue was whether ITC on construction services for machinery support is restricted. The ruling held that such foundation forms part of plant and machinery, making ITC admissible.
The application was dismissed because the tax liability had already been determined and challenged before the High Court. The Authority ruled that parallel proceedings are not permissible.
