In re IDMC Ltd. (GST AAR Gujarat) 1. Whether contract involving supply of equipment / machinery & erection, installation & commissioning services without civil work thereof would be contemplated as composite supply of cattle feed plant under GST regime? If the supplies would qualify as composite supply, what would be the classification of this bundle […]
In re Granules USA Inc (GST AAR Telangana) It is to inform that Section 96 of the CGST & SGST Acts clearly state territorial nexus of an Advance Ruling authority so that an authority for Advance Ruling shall function as such an Authority for Advance ruling for that State or Union Territory in which it […]
In re Data Processing Forms Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Gujarat) A. Whether from the facts and circumstances of the case, supplies made by the applicant to the Examination Boards and Educational Institution are entitled for exemption from payment of Good and Service Tax under Sr. No. 66, Heading No. 9992 (education Services) of the exemption […]
In re Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited (GST AAR Karnataka) The issue before us is the admissibility / maintainability of the instant application and the said admissibility is governed by the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which reads as under: The Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised […]
In re Pankaj Enterprises (GST AAR Karnataka) The applicant has sought clarification about determination of taxable value of commercial immovable property for the purpose of GST liability i.e whether the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed between builder and proposed purchaser or guidance value fixed by the state government authorities for the purpose of […]
Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Vs Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case, it is true that no service tax was chargeable on the activity of the appellant, viz., carrying the advertisements in its broadcast and telecast. Therefore, the Government cannot collect service tax. It is also true that Section […]
Tata Consumer Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) From a perusal of the impugned Order-in-Appeal, I find that though the appellate authority has taken note of the claim of the appellant as regards the inadvertent/clerical error, but has not accepted on the ground that the same was not brought to the notice […]
Beverly Hills Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) After considering written submission of the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order has held that the appellant had attempted to clear goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 6374054 dt. 14.05.2018 through non-notified ICD/ Port in violations of the provisions contained in Rule […]
DCIT Vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The facts clearly shows that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of ₹29,46,886/- on non EDP and EDP equipments under IT expenses. This expenditure is related to purchase of Pen drives, laptop adapters, batteries and hard disk, etc. The learned Assessing Officer made the disallowance […]
Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd Vs CIT (Orissa High Court) The purpose of Section 43B of the Act was to ensure that a liability could be claimed as deduction only if the Assessee has actually parted with the sum without any recourse to it thereafter. In the present case, the interim stay granted in […]
