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)
5 GST Judgments in 2026 Every Business Should Be Watching
The year 2026 has already delivered several landmark GST decisions that could significantly influence tax compliance, assessments, and litig...
-
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...
-
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when an expenditure is claimed to have been incurred by an assessee for promotion of his busine...
-
The posting had been move to another website. Please click the link below to get the access of the same. https://taxofindia.wordpress....
-
The Reserve Bank of India has introduced a new framework governing export and import transactions under FEMA. These regulations are effectiv...
-
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is warranted even if assessee makes false claim of Sec 80IA benefits ...
-
What is a Digital Signature? Answer: A digital signature authenticates electronic documents in a similar manner a handwritten signatur...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) [1] on whether a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the ...
-
The overall effective tax rate of a U.S. multinational corporation may have significant impact on the value of its stock. Therefore, it ...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Gujarat High Court (HC)1 on the taxability of corporate guarantee provided by the Petitio...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Delhi High Court (HC) [1] on whether the newly introduced pre-deposit requirement for fi...
No comments:
Post a Comment