It is informed that w.e.f. 01.08.2020, the CoO applications for exports from India to Thailand under ASEAN-India FTA should be submitted through the e-COO Platform by the exporters to the designated issuing agencies i.e. EIA, MPEDA and Textile Committee.
*Yashish Sharma Determining the residential status for income tax purposes is a big challenge for this financial year and a part of the previous financial year. This has been a topic of debate as many non – residents had to extend their stay in India, in view of the lockdown and resultant suspension of international […]
These rules may be called the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Regulation of Insurance Business in Special Economic Zone) (Amendment) Rules,2020.
In re Prragathi Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Karnataka) Railway parts such as Couplers, Knuckle, Locks, Toggle, Yoke etc., manufactured and supplied by applicant to buyer Sanrok Enterprises (who in turn supply to Indian Railways after assembly) be classified under HSN 8607 or to be classified under HSN 7325 as other cast articles of […]
In re Kothiwale Tobacco Trading Company (GST AAR Karnataka) 1. M/s Kothiwale Tobacco Trading Company, # 1097, Kothiwale Building, Guruwar Peth, Nipani, Belagavi-591237, Karnataka, having GSTIN number 29AABFK8679G1ZS, have filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act,2017 86 KGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 86 KGST […]
Kerala High Court clarifies the time frame for best judgment assessment under GST. Details of the Amani Machine Centre vs. State Tax Officer case.
We are pleased to inform you about the various initiatives of the Committee for Members in Practice for the benefits of the profession. Please find the appended brief details of the Initiatives of the Committee along with the web link of the initiatives for your reference & perusal.
It was requested by the Trade and Associations that time limit provided for submission of application for refund of security deposit of Rs. 25,000/- be extended.
Madras High Court upheld the requirement which mandates that the IP should pay a fee calculated at 0.25% of the professional fee earned for services rendered as an IP in the preceding financial year to the IBBI.
A case was booked against M/s. Fortune Graphics Limited, M/s. Reema Polychem Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Ganpati Enterprises, who were found involved in issuance of invoices without any actual supply of goods.
