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...
Goods and Services Tax : The Kerala AAR held that advance ruling applications cannot be based on hypothetical scenarios or academic questions. The Authorit...
Goods and Services Tax : The Kerala AAR held that medicines, consumables, room rent, and ancillary services provided during inpatient treatment form part o...
Goods and Services Tax : Kerala AAR held that used gunny bags sold after cattle feed manufacturing are reusable packing bags under HSN 6305 and not scrap. ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Kerala AAR rejected an advance ruling application after noting that the issue of GST applicability on member transactions had ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Authority ruled that the President and Members of the statutory temple board are not “directors” under GST notifications. ...
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, ...
The issue involved classification of panels used in interior decoration. The ruling emphasized functional role and structural characteristics as key determinants.
The authority permitted withdrawal as no ruling had been issued at the time of request. The decision confirms that applicants can withdraw applications prior to pronouncement under Regulation 20.
The case examined GST applicability on digital marketing training services. The ruling held that NSDC-approved training partners are eligible for exemption under Entry 69.
The ruling examines whether construction services for machinery foundations qualify for ITC. It holds that such foundations are integral to plant and machinery and not barred under Section 17(5). The decision clarifies eligibility where structures directly support manufacturing equipment.
The issue was whether ITC on construction services for machinery support is restricted. The ruling held that such foundation forms part of plant and machinery, making ITC admissible.
The application was dismissed because the tax liability had already been determined and challenged before the High Court. The Authority ruled that parallel proceedings are not permissible.
The Authority held that contribution of leasehold land and constructed property to an LLP is not a sale of immovable property. It constitutes a supply of service as consideration exists in the form of profit-sharing rights.
The Authority held that processing activities like crushing and sizing do not create a new product with distinct characteristics. Since the mineral remains unchanged, the activity does not qualify as manufacture.
The Authority dismissed the Departments appeal, confirming that geomembranes are textile products. The ruling relied on established judicial precedent and the product’s manufacturing process involving weaving.
The issue involved whether concessional customs duty applies to inputs scrapped during manufacturing. The ruling held that absence of explicit provision under applicable rules prevents extension of benefit, reinforcing strict interpretation of exemption notifications.
