The authorities seems to have asked the taxpayers reporting income from sales of securities in their Financials, to reverse part of the common ITC u/s 17(3) considering the same as an exempt supply The definition of exempt supply uGST means supply of any goods/services which attracts nil rate of tax/wholly exempt from tax and includes non-taxable supply (NTS) NTS is further defined as a supply of goods or services or both which is not leviable to tax uGST Hence, an income to fall under the exempt/NT supply should either be a supply of goods or services "goods” uGST means every kind of movable property other than money and securities... “services” uGST means anything other than goods, money and securities 'Securities' as can be seen above, gets excluded both from the definition of 'goods' & 'services' Merely because there is a mention in Rule 45 that the value of an exempt supply in case of 'securities' shall be taken as 1% of its sale value, will there be an obligation to reverse ITC?? Reference may also be drawn from Hon'ble CESTAT ruling agreeing to the assessee's contention that the income from investments in Mutual Funds may not fall under the ambit of 6(3) reversals as its not the business income of the assessee
Monday, 16 December 2019
No reversal of common ITC on Income from Securities?
The authorities seems to have asked the taxpayers reporting income from sales of securities in their Financials, to reverse part of the common ITC u/s 17(3) considering the same as an exempt supply The definition of exempt supply uGST means supply of any goods/services which attracts nil rate of tax/wholly exempt from tax and includes non-taxable supply (NTS) NTS is further defined as a supply of goods or services or both which is not leviable to tax uGST Hence, an income to fall under the exempt/NT supply should either be a supply of goods or services "goods” uGST means every kind of movable property other than money and securities... “services” uGST means anything other than goods, money and securities 'Securities' as can be seen above, gets excluded both from the definition of 'goods' & 'services' Merely because there is a mention in Rule 45 that the value of an exempt supply in case of 'securities' shall be taken as 1% of its sale value, will there be an obligation to reverse ITC?? Reference may also be drawn from Hon'ble CESTAT ruling agreeing to the assessee's contention that the income from investments in Mutual Funds may not fall under the ambit of 6(3) reversals as its not the business income of the assessee
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mere execution of JDA with developer does not trigger capital gains tax in real estate transactions
Recently Bangalore ITAT recently delivered an important ruling clarifying that merely executing a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) does n...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
An eminent concern within the GST framework pertains to the entitlement of Input Tax Credit (ITC) concerning expenditures associated with In...
-
Recent judicial pronouncements across different forums have clarified several important aspects of Indian income tax law, particularly relat...
-
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 (ITA 2025) and the accompanying Income-tax Rules, 2026 introduces a significantly overhauled co...
-
The newly enacted Income Tax Act, 2025, marks a significant step toward simplification by consolidating multiple presumptive taxation sche...
-
Introduction Employee welfare is a cornerstone of corporate responsibility, and gratuity forms a critical part of the social security benefi...
-
The overall effective tax rate of a U.S. multinational corporation may have significant impact on the value of its stock. Therefore, it ...
-
A significant change under Section 395(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 is reshaping how Lower Deduction Certificates (LDCs) operate via TRACE...
-
Introduction: India's Green Economy and the Tax Conundrum India stands as a global powerhouse in the fight against climate change, c...
-
In a landmark ruling, the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, in the case of Amith Vishnaw Gudimela, held that a delay in filing Form-67 cannot be the so...
No comments:
Post a Comment