Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 171 required the benefit of a GST rate reduction to be passed on through a corresponding price reduction, and the Tribunal found profiteering where cinema ticket prices were kept at the same cum-tax level by increasing the base price. It upheld the DGAP's computation, including GST in the profiteered amount because the excess collection itself was tax-inclusive and not lawfully due. The Tribunal also held that interest under Rule 133(3)(c) applied only prospectively from 28.06.2019, but declined penalty because the penal provision could not operate retrospectively for the relevant period. The profiteered amount was directed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund with interest from 28.06.2019.
Section 171 required the benefit of a GST rate reduction to be passed on through a corresponding price reduction, and the Tribunal found profiteering where cinema ticket prices were kept at the same cum-tax level by increasing the base price. It upheld the DGAP's computation, including GST in the profiteered amount because the excess collection itself was tax-inclusive and not lawfully due. The Tribunal also held that interest under Rule 133(3)(c) applied only prospectively from 28.06.2019, but declined penalty because the penal provision could not operate retrospectively for the relevant period. The profiteered amount was directed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund with interest from 28.06.2019.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.