The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued a standard operating procedure (SoP) for the scrutiny of GST returns for the financial year 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with rule 99 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides for scrutiny of returns and related particulars furnished by the registered person.
The SoP stated that “till the time a Scrutiny Module for online scrutiny of returns is made available on the CBIC-GST application, as an interim measure, the following Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is being issued by the Board in order to ensure uniformity in selection/ identification of returns for scrutiny, methodology of scrutiny of such returns and other related procedures.”
The SoP stated that the selection of returns for scrutiny is to be based on specific risk parameters. For this purpose, the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM) has been assigned the task to select the GSTINs registered with Central tax authorities, whose returns are to be scrutinized, and to communicate the same to the field formations from time to time through the DDM portal (to the nodal officer of the Commissionerate concerned) for further action.
Further, scrutiny of returns of a taxpayer may be conducted by Superintendent of Central Tax in-charge of the jurisdictional range of the said taxpayer.
“The proper officer shall conduct scrutiny of returns pertaining to minimum of 3 GSTINs per month. Scrutiny of returns of one GSTIN shall mean scrutiny of all returns pertaining to a financial year for which the said GSTIN has been identified for scrutiny,” the SoP said.
The Proper Officer shall scrutinize the returns and related particulars furnished by the registered person to verify the correctness of the returns. Information available with the proper officer on the system in the form of various returns and statements furnished by the registered person and the data/details made available through various sources like DGARM, ADVAIT, GSTN, E-Way Bill Portal, etc. may be relied upon for this purpose.
CIRCULAR NO: 02/2022-GST
DATE: 22nd March, 2022
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
Danfoss has invited applications for the post of Assistant Manager – Finance. This position reports to Manager – P2P.
Responsibilities:
Qualifications:
Location: Oragadam, India.
For more details and to apply, click here:
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Pune bench of the ITAT has held that the income from the sale of land purchased by a partnership firm for the purpose of business and declared the same as fixed assets in the books shall constitute capital gain under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee, Hari Om Associates, a partnership firm, came into existence for undertaking construction and development work. A piece of land was purchased on 07-07-2005 for Rs.19,53,390/-. Development expenses of Rs.2.00 lakh were incurred on the said land. The assessee, on the transfer of this land in the year under consideration, offered long-term capital gain thereon. The AO held that the land was purchased for the purpose of carrying on business and not as an investment.
ITAT Vice President Mr. R S Syal observed that the assessee did not undertake any business activity. Before the close of the very first year itself, the assessee declared the cost of purchase of land and development expenses as `Investment’ under the head `Fixed Assets’ in its balance sheet.
“The position continued to remain the same in its balance sheets on 31-03-2007, 31-03-2008, during which the assessee continued to declare such Plot as `Investment’. In the year under consideration, the assessee could manage to sell the property by involving the other party in the litigation on the same property, namely, Maruti Builders and Developers, signing as a ‘Consenting Party. Thus it is clear that the assessee continued to treat such land as Investment ab initio, by showing it under the head `Fixed assets’ in its balance sheets from year to year and not as ‘Stock in trade’, which position has not been disputed by the AO in any of the earlier years. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the land purchased by the assessee in the year 2005 has rightly been treated as a Capital asset by the assessee, income from whose transfer is liable to be taken under the head `Capital Gains’ and not as Business Income. I, therefore, overturn the impugned order and restore the assessee’s point of view on this issue,” the Tribunal said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune bench has held that the exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not available if the assessee purchased new agricultural land in the name of sons out of the sale consideration received for transferring the old agricultural land.
As per section 54B, the exemption can be claimed in respect of capital gains arising on transfer of the capital asset, being agricultural land (may be long-term or short-term).
The assessee transferred certain agricultural lands and claimed exemption under section 54B of the Act amounting to Rs.18 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that she purchased new agricultural land in the name of her sons, Swapnil M. Pathare and Sonal M. Pathare. The Assessing Officer (AO) came to hold that the condition precedent for claiming exemption under section 54B of the Act was that the new property should be purchased in the name of the assessee only.
ITAT Vice President R S Syal found that the jurisdictional High Court in Prakash Vs. ITO and others have disentitled the assessee to the claim of exemption when a new property is not purchased in the name of the assessee, who transferred the original property.
Upholding the order of the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal held that “The principle of following a view in favour of the assessee when contrary views are available, applies to the authorities acting under a neutral High Court, namely, which has not expressed any opinion – for or against – on that point. Once the jurisdictional High Court decides a particular issue in a particular manner, that manner has to be mandatorily followed by all the authorities acting under it so long as it holds the field and is not deactivated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, I am bound to follow the view taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. The ld. AR failed to draw my attention towards any other subsequent decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in favour of the assessee on this issue. I, therefore, hold that the authorities below were justified in making the assessee not eligible to exemption u/s 54B of the Act.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
A former auditor of the Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd was removed from the register of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) for one year by the disciplinary committee. The first allegation against the Chartered Accountant was that during the course of inspection that the M/s Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. had received grant (support)…
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if concealment of income is not proven and the quantum order is quashed by the appellate authority.
The assessee approached the High Court stating that the charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is consequential and mandatory. He contended that since the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order dated 29th
Upon perusal of the impugned order, the Court found that “in the impugned order, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated (2011) 330 December, 2008 had given a specific direction to charge interest, non-levy of interest under Section 234B of the Act while computing tax demand was a mistake apparent on the record and was therefore rectifiable under the provisions of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.”
“This Court is also in agreement with the opinion of the Tribunal that the penalty can only be levied in such cases where concealment of income has been proven. If the quantum order itself has been set aside in an appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee, there is no question of penalty being levied,” the Court said.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 vs GRACEMAC CORPORATION
CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 211
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Pune bench of the ITAT has directed the income tax department to verify the claim regarding the payment of Nazarana to the Govt. of Maharashtra was a precondition to receive a marketable title and for transfer of such land, such payment of Nazarana would constitute the cost of acquisition.
The assessee contended that the land sold by the assessee was sanadi land which was received by his forefathers from Sansthanik as Inam issued by the then Chatrapati. Since the Inam did not have any cost of acquisition, the assessee submitted that the capital gain was not chargeable to tax.
On first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the claim of the assessee and granted relief by holding that such payment would constitute cost of acquisition. Against the order, the department approached the Tribunal.
ITAT Vice President R S Syal observed that the assessee did not take up the issue of Inami land before the AO. It was for the first time that the assessee raised this issue before the ld. CIT(A) contending that in the absence of any cost of acquisition incurred by his forefathers in obtaining the land in Inam, the machinery provisions for computing the capital gains failed. In support of the said contention, the assessee placed before the ld. CIT(A) some documents asserting InamPatrak containing the entry of impugned land which was in torn condition and notlegible. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee‟s contention on the ground that the same was not legible.
While remanding the matter back to the file of AO, the Tribunal held that “The second view canvassed by the assessee that there was no cost of acquisition in view of such property being received as Inam, the ld. CIT(A) observed that payment of Nazarana to the Govt. of Maharashtra was a precondition to receive a marketable title and for transfer of such land, such payment of Nazarana would constitute the cost of acquisition. The ld. AR submitted that there was no such provision in the relevant Statute providing for payment of Nazarana as a precondition for receiving Inam property. A prayer was made that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have examined the assessee‟s claim of Inami land by directing the enquiry to the concerned officials. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things, if the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct the AO to decide the issue afresh after conducting proper enquiries about the assessee‟s claim of having received the land in question by his forefathers as Inam and further about the Nil cost ofacquisition claim raised by the assessee.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued a circular providing exclusions to faceless assessments under section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Thecirculat issued today section 119 of Income-tax Act, 1961 stated that “Assessment orders in all cases for which the time limit for completion expires on March 31, 2022 pending with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer as on March 15, 2022 or thereafter, which cannot be completed as per the procedure laid down under Section 144B of the Act due to technical procedural constraints in the given period of limitation.”
The Board further clarified that assessment in cases at (vi) above shall be completed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
The Board further reiterated that the exception at (vi) above is applicable only to the cases for which the time limit for completion expires on March 31, 2022.
CIRCULAR NO: F.No. 187/3/2020-ITA-I
DATE: 17th March 2022
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The CBDT issued Order vide F. No. 187/3/2020-ITA-1 dated March 17, 2022 under section 144B(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for specifying the scope/cases to be done under the Income Tax Act.
As part of the tax policy, vide Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, section 144B was inserted in the Act to provide the procedure for faceless assessment with effect from 01.04. 2021 and the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 ceased to operate from that date.
In partial modification of the Order under sub-section (2) of Section 144B of the Income tax Act, 1961, for specifying the scope / cases to be done under the Act, by F.No.187/3/2020-ITA-1 dated March 31, 2021, as amended by Orders of even number dated September 06, 2021, September 22, 2021 and December 16, 2021, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that in addition to the exclusion of the cases in the said Orders, the following shall be excluded from the purview of section 144B of the Act.
“Cases for which the time limit for completion expires on March 31, 2022 pending with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer as on March 15, 2022 or thereafter, which cannot be completed as per the procedure laid down under Section 144B of the Act due to technical procedural constraints in the given period of limitation,” the Order said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The CBDT issued a circular on Thursday regarding condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the filing of Form 10-IC for Assessment Year 2020-21.
Form 10-IC is required to filed only if a Domestic Company chooses to pay tax at concessional rate of 22% under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act,1961.
Section 115BAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 w.e.f. April 01, 2020. As per the Section, the income-tax payable in respect of the total income of a person, being a domestic company, for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after April 01, 2020, shall, at the option of such person be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent subject to satisfaction of conditions contained in sub-section (2) of the Section.
As per subsection (5) of section 115 BAA of the Act read with Rule 21AE of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules), the assessee company is required to submit Form 10-IC electronically on or before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and such option once exercised shall apply to subsequent assessment years.
Failure to furnish such option in the prescribed form on or before the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act results in denial of concessional rate of tax of twenty-two per cent to such person.
The circular has been issued in the light of representations received by the Board stating that Form 10-IC could not be filed along with the return of income for AY 2020-21, which was the first year of filing of this form. It has been requested that the delay in filing of Form 10-IC may be condoned.
On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid genuine hardship to the domestic companies in exercising the option u/s 115BAA of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, hereby directs that:
The delay in filing of Form 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Rules for the previous year relevant to A.Y 2020-21 is condoned in cases where the following conditions are satisfied:
i) The return of income for AY 2020-21 has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act;
ii) The assessee company has opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act in (e) of “Filing Status” in “Part A-GEN” of the Form of Return of Income ITR-6 and
(iii) Form 10-IC is filed electronically on or before June 30, 2022 or 3 months from the end of the month in which this Circular is issued, whichever is later.
CIRCULAR NO: 6/2022
DATE: 17th March 2022
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Google has invited applications for the post of Business Operations Manager, Global Delivery Center.
Responsibilities:
Qualifications:
For more details and to apply, click here:
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) has enabled the facility to Registration and Login for Taxpayers with Turnover Rs. 20to 50 crores.The CBIC had notified the reduction in the Applicability of GST E-invoicing threshold from Rs.50 Crores to Rs.20 Crores with effect from April 1, 2022.
‘E-invoicing’ facilitates the exchange of the invoice document (structured invoice data) between a supplier and a buyer in an integrated electronic format by way of standard e-invoice schema (INV-01) through looping the government authorities i.e. invoicing portal to keep a check on suspicious taxpayers.
The CBIC notified registered person, other than a Special Economic Zone unit and those referred to in sub-rules (2), (3), (4), and (4A) of rule 54 of the GST rules, whose aggregate turnover in any preceding financial year from 2017-18 onwards exceeds Five hundred crore rupees, as a class of registered person who shall prepare the invoice and other prescribed documents, in terms of sub-rule (4) of rule 48 of the said rules in respect of the supply of goods or services or both to a registered person or for exports. Later on, the applicability of the E-invoicing threshold was Rs.500 crores till December 31, 2020, thereafter 100 crores and then reduced to Rs.50 Crores now it is again capped to Rs 20 crores.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) available on evaporation of petroleum products under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Earlier, the Tribunal accepted the appeals and held that dealers were entitled to Input Tax Credit on evaporation loss of Petrol and High-Speed Diesel….
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ( ICAI ) has rescheduled the CA Foundations Exam 2022.
A Notification issued by ICAI said that, The Institute vide its Announcement No. 13-CA (Exams)/M/2022 dated 21st January 2022 announced the schedule of Chartered Accountants May 2022 Examinations. Among other examinations, Foundation Examination, May 2022 is to be held on 23rd, 25th, 27th, and 29th May 2022. Now the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) – Senior School Certificate Examination, Term II (2021- 2022) and Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (ICSE), Semester 2, the Year 2022 have announced their schedule of Senior School Certificate Examinations which are to be held during this period. To mitigate the hardship of the students who are sitting in the aforementioned examinations and simultaneously pursuing Chartered Accountants Foundation Course Examination, May 2022, it has been decided to re-schedule the dates of Foundation Course Examination, May 2022.
The ICAI said that, the CA Foundation examination will now be conducted on the 24th, 26th, 28th, and 30th of June 2022.
The ICAI also said that, there would be no change in the examination schedule in the event of any day of the examination schedule being declared a Public Holiday by the Central Government or any State Government / Local Holiday. However, it Is clarified that the other particulars/details announced vide Important Announcement No. 13-CA (EXAM)/M/2022 dated 21s’ January 2022 shall remain unchanged.
For more details, click here:
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore bench has held that the payment made for flight testing services by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd to CGTM France cannot be treated as Fee for Technical Services (FTS).
The assessee is a public sector undertaking of the Govt. of India. The assessee is engaged in the business of design, development, manufacture, and maintenance of advanced fighters, piston and jet engine trainers, commercial aircraft, helicopters, and associated aero engines, aircraft systems, equipment, and avionics catering mainly to India’s defence needs. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.13,80,672/- u/s 40a(ia) for non-deduction of tax on payments made to CGTM France towards flight testing services treating the same as Fee for Technical Services.
The assessee challenged the addition by contending that there was no technology that was made available by CGTM France to the assessee.
A two-judge bench of the Tribunal comprising Shri George George K, Judicial Member And Ms. Padmavathy S, Accountant Member observed that the perusal of the details of technical services provided by CGTM France to the assessee shows that the technicians/engineers of CGTM carried out Air intake Survey relating to Air inlet distortion and installation losses. On the basis of test results, the assessee would look into various issues involving in the Shakti Engine and would carry out the requisite test for improving its engine.
“The fees paid towards the services in question here is purely towards the testing of Shakti Engines in order to identify the issues of Air inlet distortion and installation losses,” the bench said.
Deleting the addition, the Tribunal said “In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that fees paid by the assessee to CGTM France is not in the nature of fees for technical services and hence does not attract the provisions of sec. 195 with regard to the requirement for deduction of tax at source on payment of fees for technical services of a resident outside India. As a result, no disallowance is warranted u/s 40(a)(ia) of the expenses claimed by the assessee towards payment of service charges to CGTM France. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in favour of the assessee.”
Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule appeared for the assessee.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
A division bench of the Delhi High Court has quashed an income tax notice and an assessment order on the ground that a personal hearing was not allowed to the assessee.
Before the High court, the assessee, an individual, challenged the assessment order dated 07.06.2021, issued under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961making an addition of Rs.7,34,28,895/- treating the same as Other Income. The addition in the petitioner’s income was proposed on account of interest received by him from the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) on enhanced compensation for acquisition of his land. The consequential penalties were also imposed by the department based on the assessment.
The assessee contended before the Court that an opportunity of personal hearing was not allowed to the assessee before passing the order.
The division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh relied on the decision in RitnandBalved Education Foundation (Umbrella Organization of Amity Group of Institutions) v. National Faceless Assessment Centre &Ors, wherein it was held that since the statute itself makes the provision for grant of personal hearing, the department cannot veer away from the same.
Allowing relief to the assessee, the Court held that “The impugned assessment order dated 07.06.2021, as well as consequential notices i.e., the notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Act, and the notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act, of even date, are set aside.”
OMKAR NATH vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI (EARLIER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI) & ANR.
CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 137
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai bench has held that the Customs department shall process the refund claims in a proper manner as the interest on delayed refund amount are paid out of public money.
The appellants, Ingram Micro India Ltd., applied for a refund of duty paid. After two years, on 21.06.2012 the original authority has rejected the refund claim stating that the appellant did not produce the Chartered Accountant certificate to prove that burden of 4% Additional Duty has not been passed on to the buyer.
The appellants challenged the order before the Tribunal.
Judicial Member Ms. SulekhaBeevi observed that the refund claim is rejected on the ground that the appellant has not produced the Chartered Accountant certificate to establish that the burden of 4% Additional Duty has not been passed on to another.
“On perusal of the order passed by both the authorities, I find that they have not cared to peruse the documents submitted by the appellant. The refund claim has been rejected in a cryptic manner. It is to be borne by the authorities below that interest on such delayed refund is paid out of public money and therefore the refund claims have to be processed in proper manner after perusing the documents produced by the claimants. In the present case, though the refund claim is received on 16.06.2009, the adjudicating authority has passed the order only on 21.06.2012.”
Noting that the adjudicating authority ought to have conducted one more personal hearing so as to make sure whether the appellants have furnished necessary documents before rejecting the appeal on such technical grounds, the Tribunal held that“Besides the liability to pay interest, both sides incur litigation expenses also, of which theexpense of the department is borne from the public exchequer. These type of unnecessary litigations have to be avoided.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Gujarat State Government has granted Tax-Free Status to the Movie ‘The Kashmir Files’.
The Government of Gujarat to promote the exhibition of the cinematographic film titled ‘The Kashmir Files’ within the State of Gujarat grants reimbursement of State GST. The State GST paid by Multiplex/cinema owners for entry to an exhibition of the film ‘The Kashmir Files’ in the State of Gujarat from 14.03.2022 to 13.06.2022 (both dates inclusive) shall be reimbursed to them by the State Government, subject to conditions.
Exhibitor or cinema owner shall be liable to pay State GST. They shall make invoices and show applicable CGST/SGST thereon, but not collect SGST from the consumer (viewer). Moreover, they shall ensure that, the tickets sold for the film ‘The Kashmir Files’ during the aforesaid period bears the words “State GST not collected by the orders of Government of Gujarat. Exhibitor or cinema owner shall file returns as per Act and rules made thereunder and also shall deposit the tax (CGST+SGST) chargeable on the entry fee for the exhibition of the film ‘The Kashmir Files’. The State GST shall be paid by the taxpayer exhibitor or cinema owner as the case may be, as per prevailing rules.
For claiming the reimbursement the exhibitor or cinema owner shall submit details of movie halls and shows in which the film is played and tickets sold date-wise to the government and submit the details of the tax (SGST Gross) payable on such tickets/collection made for the film. They need to show the proof of not having collected the State GST from viewers and submit the claims in the format as may be prescribed by the government.
The claims for the State GST refund shall be submitted to the Director of Information, Gandhinagar. The State GST payable or paid prior to the date of this resolution or collected after the expiry of the reimbursement period shall not be reimbursed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad bench has held that the stock exchange fee paid for availing stock exchange service shall be subject to service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) in terms of Section 66A read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant are engaged in the manufacturing of Bulk Drugs falling under the…
The Accor has invited applications for the post of Accounts Payable Executive.
Responsibilities:
Qualifications:
Location: Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
For more details and to apply, click here:
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The World Bank has invited applications for the post of Financial Analyst.
Responsibilities:
Qualifications:
Location: Chennai, India.
For more details and to apply, click here:
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
