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)
India-Mauritius DTAA Protocol Notified: Key Tax Implications
The Government of India has notified the amendment to the Protocol of the India-Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) on 13 Oct...
-
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...
-
In a recent informal guidance letter, SEBI clarified whether a cousin of a Promoter Group member qualifies as a person ‘related to promote...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
Key features of File Validation Utility (FVU) version 3.3 FVU 3.3 will be applicable for quarterly TDS/ TCS statements pertaining to...
-
CIT vs. The Instalment Supply Ltd (Delhi High Court) The assessee bought 1614 items of computer systems for Rs.40 lacs from HCL Hewlett ...
-
Facts The applicant („A‟) is a closely held Public Limited company incorporated in India in the year 1953. A‟s shareholder included A (...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
Until now, 'Samaritans' is not how the Independent Directors are purported by Clause 49 in the Listing agreement. An Independ...
-
1. Concept of “limited liability partnership” LLP is an alternative corporate business form that gives the benefits of limited liability ...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
No comments:
Post a Comment