The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s challenge to depreciation claims on leased assets after the Bombay High Court held that leasing constituted business use under Section 32. The ruling reaffirmed that physical use by the assessee is not necessary where assets are used in the leasing business.
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax demand raised merely on differences between ST-3 returns and Income Tax Returns without proper examination of records was unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Additional Excise Duty introduced from 11.07.2014 could not be imposed on goods manufactured before the levy came into force, even if cleared later.
The Madras High Court held that disputes regarding alleged false or incomplete election affidavit disclosures must be raised through an election petition. The Court ruled that such issues cannot be examined in a writ petition under Article 226.
The Madras High Court held that taxable income was not properly computed where deduction under Section 80IB was reduced before calculating Section 80HHC relief. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment in line with the Supreme Court ruling in Shital Fibers Ltd.
The Kerala AAR held that advance ruling applications cannot be based on hypothetical scenarios or academic questions. The Authority rejected the application because it did not relate to any actual or proposed supply undertaken by the applicant.
The Kerala AAR held that medicines, consumables, room rent, and ancillary services provided during inpatient treatment form part of a composite healthcare supply. Such inpatient healthcare services qualify for GST exemption under Notification No. 12/2017.
Kerala AAR held that used gunny bags sold after cattle feed manufacturing are reusable packing bags under HSN 6305 and not scrap. The ruling clarified that GST would apply at 5% if the sale value does not exceed Rs. 2500 per piece.
The Kerala AAR rejected an advance ruling application after noting that the issue of GST applicability on member transactions had already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings. The Authority held the application was barred under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
The Authority ruled that the President and Members of the statutory temple board are not “directors” under GST notifications. Accordingly, reverse charge GST was held inapplicable on honorarium and sitting fees.
