Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 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.