The AAR held that advance ruling can be sought only for supplies made by the applicant. Since hostel services were provided by the tenant, the application was rejected as not maintainable.
The AAR closed the proceedings after the applicant withdrew the advance ruling application following a change in circumstances, without examining GST issues on merits.
The ruling holds that GST credit on construction inputs for a rental commercial property is blocked under Section 17(5)(d), even though rent is a taxable supply.
The authority held that corporate food aggregation involving logistics and quality control is a composite supply of services, not goods. As a result, GST at 18% applies under the residual service entry, while ITC is allowed.
The authority disposed of the application after the applicant sought withdrawal citing a temporary halt in the proposed expansion project. No ruling was given on ITC eligibility as the matter was not examined on merits.
The Authority held that classification under HSN and GST rate cannot be determined without precise details of goods or services. In the absence of such information, no ruling on classification was possible.
The ITAT held that reassessment is invalid where no addition is made on the sole ground for reopening, leading to the proceedings being quashed.
Calcutta High Court held that in a proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act of 1961, the PCIT is empowered to make such inquiry as he deems necessary and inspection of seized assets may very well form part of such inquiry. Accordingly, notice of inspection is duly sustainable and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment for AY 2015–16 was barred by limitation as the Section 148 notice was issued beyond the permissible period. It ruled that TOLA did not extend the time limit and the proceedings were void ab initio.
The appellate authority sent the matter back for re-investigation after the developer claimed that a higher benefit than alleged profiteering was already passed to buyers. The key takeaway is that factual verification of claimed price reductions is essential before confirming profiteering.
