The Tamil Nadu AAR held that “Pooja Panneer” could not claim GST exemption as puja samagri because the exemption notification specifically listed eligible items. The Authority ruled that the word “namely” made the list exhaustive and not illustrative.
The Tamil Nadu AAR observed that devotees’ tonsuring is a religious activity exempt from GST, but the subsequent licensing of hair collection is a separate commercial transaction liable to GST.
The Tamil Nadu AAR ruled that the GST advance ruling application stood withdrawn after the applicant informed the authority about its decision to withdraw the filing due to business transformation plans.
The Tamil Nadu AAR held that commission paid to a foreign national director for sourcing export orders attracts GST under reverse charge as it qualifies as import of services. The ruling relied on place of supply provisions under the IGST Act.
The Nainital Bank issued an RFP for appointment of Statutory Central Auditors for FY 2026-27 in line with RBI guidelines. The document prescribes strict eligibility conditions, evaluation criteria, and independence requirements for audit firms.
The article explains how inflation and geopolitical tensions are affecting household budgets, savings, and investments. It highlights the importance of disciplined financial planning, emergency funds, and diversified investments.
The article explains how Audit Committee, Board, and shareholder approvals apply to related party transactions under corporate law. It highlights stricter compliance requirements for listed companies under SEBI regulations.
The article explains that GST penalties generally require existence of tax liability, contravention, or deliberate intent to evade tax. Mere technical or clerical lapses without mens rea cannot automatically trigger penal action under the GST Act.
ITAT Chennai held that the assessee was denied reasonable opportunity when the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without permitting correction of technical defects in the condonation petition. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that only 8% of disputed purchases could be added where the assessee had disclosed corresponding sales and made payments through banking channels. Entire purchase disallowance was held to distort true business income.
