To facilitate foreign investment into the country a number of steps have been taken by Government of India in the past. Setting up an Authority for Advance Rulings (Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax) to give binding rulings, in advance, on Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax matters pertaining to an investment venture in India is one such measure. The legal provisions of Advance Rulings were introduced through the Finance Acts of 1998, 1999 and 2003.
Income Tax : Only specified applicants such as non-residents, certain residents, and public sector companies can apply. The ruling clarifies ta...
Goods and Services Tax : The authority held that oxygen supply through installed infrastructure is a composite supply of goods. The key takeaway is that pr...
Income Tax : Understand when and how to file an advance ruling application under the Income-tax Act, 2025. The update clarifies eligibility, do...
Goods and Services Tax : Recent AAR rulings have raised questions on whether ITC on imports is subject to Section 16(4). While one ruling applies the time ...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue was whether foreign patent filing fees attract GST. The ruling confirms such payments are taxable as import of services ...
Income Tax : From October 2024, applicants can withdraw advance ruling requests pending with the Board for Advance Rulings by October 31. Final...
Income Tax : This handbook aims to provide general guidance on the scheme of Advance Rulings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). I...
Income Tax : CBDT launches Boards for Advance Rulings in Delhi & Mumbai, providing tax clarity to investors and entities. Learn more about this...
Goods and Services Tax : New functionality to search for GST Advance Ruling Orders issued by Authority / Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling on GST Por...
Goods and Services Tax : Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) constituted under the provisions of a SGST/ UTGST Act, in terms of the provisions of Section 96...
Custom Duty : CAAR Mumbai held that CKD kits comprising discrete electronic components could not be classified as motherboards under CTH 8473 30...
Goods and Services Tax : The Authority held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) does not permit reclaim of ITC already reversed under earlier rul...
Custom Duty : CAAR declined to entertain an advance ruling application on roasted areca nut classification after finding that the issue had alre...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka AAR disposed of the application after the applicant informed that GST demand orders on the same issue were already under...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka AAR disposed of the application after observing that a request for extension of the ITC availment deadline did not fall ...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the constitution & members of the Advance Ruling Authority under Maharashtra VAT Act 2002. Detailed analysis on its implic...
Goods and Services Tax : Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Authority makes changes in its lineup, appointing Shri. Ajaykumar Vaman Bonde as a member of Ad...
Income Tax : CBDT notifies e-advance rulings (Amendment) Scheme, 2023 which amend e-advance rulings Scheme, 2022. Amendments are related to Boa...
Goods and Services Tax : The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, has issued Notification No. 02/2023 – Union Territory Tax on May 25, 2023. T...
Income Tax : F No. 189/3/2022-ITA-I Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes) North Block, ...
CAAR Mumbai held that CKD kits comprising discrete electronic components could not be classified as motherboards under CTH 8473 30 20 because they lacked the essential character of finished motherboards at the time of importation.
The Authority held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) does not permit reclaim of ITC already reversed under earlier rulings. It clarified that the amendment only overrides Section 16(4) and does not dilute other eligibility conditions under Section 16.
CAAR declined to entertain an advance ruling application on roasted areca nut classification after finding that the issue had already been decided by the Madras High Court. The Authority held that judicial precedent barred re-examination of the same question.
Karnataka AAR disposed of the application after the applicant informed that GST demand orders on the same issue were already under appellate consideration. No ruling was given on the merits.
Karnataka AAR disposed of the application after observing that a request for extension of the ITC availment deadline did not fall within matters covered under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act.
The authority clarified that ITC cannot be claimed on amounts recovered from employees toward canteen facilities. Credit is restricted to the expenditure actually incurred by the employer.
The High Court held that a show cause notice could not survive when a binding Advance Ruling on the same issue had neither been challenged nor declared void. The notice was therefore quashed as lacking legal foundation.
The Gujarat AAR held that Psyllium (Isabgol) Seeds procured from farmers and supplied without drying, freezing, or processing qualify as fresh seeds. As a result, they are exempt from GST under Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025.
The Rajasthan GST AAAR held that advance ruling authorities cannot determine whether bags are biodegradable or compostable. It ruled that concessional 5% GST applies only if biodegradability is established by competent authorities.
The Kerala AAAR held that various packaged curries, rice products, and meat-based preparations are classifiable under HSN 21069099. The ruling emphasized that the classification must be based on the nature of the final ready-to-eat product rather than individual ingredients.
