CAAR Mumbai rejects M/s. Solae Company India Private Limited’s application for advance ruling due to jurisdiction issues, as the company’s office is in Gurgaon, under CAAR Delhi’s jurisdiction, not Mumbai’s. The company had inaccurately used their logistics service provider’s address in Mumbai.
CESTAT Chennai held that reimbursable expenses cannot be subject to levy of service tax. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside as not sustainable
ITAT Ahmedabad held that benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing of audit report in Form No. 10B.
We find that Applicant M/S Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Limited is receiver of the Goods/Services provided by the KESCO. In light of point (a) provided under Section 95 of CGST Act 2017, only supplier of the services can file Application for Advance Ruling. In this case the supplier of service is KESCO.
Mixing scent in raw unmanufactured tobacco dust by Pandey Traders changes its character to manufactured tobacco, classifiable under CTH 24039910 as “Chewing Tobacco”, per GST AAR Uttar Pradesh ruling.
Services provided by Rudrabhishek Enterprises Limited to SUDA under PMAY-U qualify as activities related to functions entrusted to Panchayats and Municipalities, thus exempt from GST as per Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate).
ITAT Mumbai held that expenses booked upto the date of survey cannot be treated as bogus only for the reason that the expenses were accounted in the books of account subsequent to the date of search.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where date of agreement fixing amount of consideration for transfer of property and ate of registration is not same, the stamp duty value on the date of allotment is to be taken.
ITAT Delhi held that benefit of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act eligible for interest income earned on fixed deposit.
Gujarat High Court ruling empowers GST authorities to investigate SEZ units, asserting jurisdiction and penalizing non-cooperation. RHC Global’s challenge dismissed, highlighting lawful enforcement against evasion in SEZs.
