Once it is held that there is no error in the order of ld. AO, the ld. PCIT would be precluded from assuming revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as one of the twin conditions mandated in section 263 is not satisfied.
Matrix Comsee Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the limited issue to be decided that whether the Appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on Courier Service. I find that the Appellant claimed that the Courier Service was used for delivery of their export goods from their factory premises to the […]
Sitaram India Ltd. Vs Commissioner CE & CGST Division-E (CESTAT Delhi) It is observed that activity of collecting toll is covered under the negative list of services. The Appellant has been provided with the Fee Collection Rights i.e., the right to collect toll tax and not to provide any service on behalf of NHAI. Further, […]
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs A. J. Enterprises (NAA) NAA observe that the DGAP in his Report dated 20.08.2020 has mentioned the investigation period from 15.11.2017 to 30.09.2019 while the profiteering has been computed upto 31.10.2019 as has been shown in Annexure 25 of his Report. The DGAP vide his supplementary Report dated 24.11.2020 […]
Under the Code, RP plays a central role in resolution process of the CD, he is appointed by the Adjudicating Authority as an officer of the Court to conduct the resolution process and it is the duty of RP to conduct CIRP with integrity and accountability in the process and to take reasonable care and […]
With a view to making the disclosure more accurate and efficient, the Exchange in consultation with SEBI, is introducing a facility of filing of statement of redressal of investor grievance in XBRL mode under Regulation 13 (3) of “LODR Regulations” with immediate effect.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 12th April, 2022 (No. 3 of 2022) F.No. A-12015/01/2022-HR/CCI.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 64, read with sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003) the Competition Commission of India hereby makes the following […]
In re Vasant Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Gujarat) Q1. Whether the activity of fabricating and mounting Tankers, Tippers, etc. on the chassis provided by the owner of such chassis i.e. bus body building would be covered under the category of Supply of Services? A1. Supply of Bus body building on the chassis owned by […]
In re Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited (GST AAR Gujarat) Q1. Whether the recoveries made by the Applicant from the employees for providing canteen facility to its employees are taxable under the GST laws? A1. GST, at the hands of M/s Emcure, is not leviable on the amount representing the employees portion of canteen charges, which is […]
In re Cadila Healthcare Limited. (GST AAR Gujarat) Whether the subsidized deduction made by the Applicant from the employees who are availing food in the factory/corporate office would be considered as a supply by the Applicant under the provisions of Section 7 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Gujarat Goods and Service […]
