As the supply to a DFS by an Indian supplier is not to ‘a place outside India’, therefore, such supplies do not qualify as ‘export of goods’ under GST. Consequently, such supplies cannot be made without payment of duty by furnishing a bond/letter of undertaking (LUT) under rule 96-A of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Aggrieved party cannot be left remedy less merely because the State Government has not notified the Appellate Forum. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, to notify the Appellate Forum within one week.
DCIT Vs Hema Mohanlal Divyasree (ITAT Cochin) We have carefully perused the JDA entered between the assessee and the developer. As per the JDA (in page 3 para 4), the construction should have completed and the share of build up area marked for the assessee ought to have been handed over within 36 months of obtaining necessary […]
PCIT Vs FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) In the present case, the reassessment notice is solely based on an audit opinion. Having regard to the fact that the assessee’s challenge to the previous year’s re-assessment orders was successful – in FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 2018 (408) […]
Here it clearly states that the shares should be a property of the recipient company. To become known as a property the shares, in such a case, should be of some other company and not of its own; because own shares cannot become property as they shall be treated as stock.
In re Allied Blenders and Distillers Private Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) Question :- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Contract Bottling Unit is making a taxable supply to the Applicant (i.e. Brand Owner), oi . alternatively, whether the Applicant (i.e. brand owner) is making a taxable supply to the. Contract g […]
Bombay High Court has held that time consumed by the concerned Ministry in granting certificates required for retrospective exemption and refund must be ignored.
Debit note, even though not specifically indicated in rule 9(1), is an eligible document for availing CENVAT credit since the same is allowed by higher courts.CENVAT credit cannot be disallowed simply due to the reason that the service tax amount is mentioned with pen and is not pre-printed.
Since the complainant is also a party to the said proceeding , he can not separately agitate this complaint before the MahaRERA, as it will amount to agitate multiple proceedings on the same issue, which is not permissible in RERA Act, 2016. In the present case since the MahaRERA has already given judgment in the proceeding filed by the complainant through the Rising City Ghatkopar Association, the same issue can not be agitated before the MahaRERA again.
In re Nargrani Warehousing Private Limited (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) Following the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of M/s.Raj Packwell Ltd. (Supra) as well as order dtd. 25.10.2018 of the learned West Bengal Appellate of Advance Ruling in case of M/s.Mega Flex Plastics Ltd., both being squarely […]
