Income Tax Law Updates:

Notification/Circulars

Ankit Enterprises Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) Order dated 11/02/2022

Hon’ble ITAT held that no addition is maintainable on account of deemed rent on 12 unsold flats which is treated as stock-in-trade by the assessee.

Goods and Services Tax Law Updates:

AAR/Case Laws/Judgements

Principal Commissioner Central Tax Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (GST AAAR Andhra Pradesh)  Date of Order: 24/01/2022 

GST not payable on hiring/leasing of buses by APSRTC to Public Transport Division.

In Re: Achampet Solar Private Limited [TELANGANA-AAR A.R.COM/16/2020 TSAAR ORDER NO.07/2022] Date of Order: 16/02/2022

The AAR has pronounced ruling that the Consideration received for forbearance is taxable under GST under the chapter head 9997 at serial no. 35 of Notification No.11/2017.

In Re: Kernex Tcas JV [TELANGANA-AAR A.R.COM/27/2021 TSAAR ORDER NO.06/2022] Date of Order: 14/02/2022

The AAR has pronounced ruling that the applicant is making a composite supply other than supply of works contract or food and beverage. Therefore it is a naturally bundled supply where in the liability to pay tax on the entire consideration will be the liability relatable to the principal supply. In this case the principal supply is Electrical signalling equipment with HSN code ‘8530’ i.e., goods and as per Section 10 of IGST Act the place of supply of goods is the place where goods are delivered by the supplier i.e., the applicant. If the applicant is delivering goods to the recipient in other State that State will be the place of supply and the liability to pay tax will arise in such State where the delivery is made.

In re Shashi Metals Private Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) [Date of Order: 03/01/2022]

The AAR has pronounced ruling that it is evident that an applicant can seek an Advance Ruling only in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them. Accordingly, the question on tax liability under reverse charge mechanism is not liable for admission before the authority of advance ruling.

In re indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh)

The AAR has pronounced ruling that the application is not admitted, under Section 98(2) read with Section 95(a) of CGST Act, 2017/UPGST Act, 2017 for the reason that the applicant has raised questions as a recipient of service.