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...
Anti-profiteering on cinema tickets required the supplier to pass on GST rate reduction through a commensurate reduction in ticket prices, and the burden to justify any higher pricing lay on the supplier. The Tribunal rejected the defence based on licensing control because no contemporaneous material showed any request, permission, or order for the relevant period, and the respondent's explanations were contradictory. As the DGAP methodology and calculations were not disputed, the profiteering computation was accepted and the amount for 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 was held recoverable with interest. Because the recipients were not identifiable, the amount had to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Funds, and penalty was declined since the penal provision applied only prospectively from 01.01.2020.
Anti-profiteering on cinema tickets required the supplier to pass on GST rate reduction through a commensurate reduction in ticket prices, and the burden to justify any higher pricing lay on the supplier. The Tribunal rejected the defence based on licensing control because no contemporaneous material showed any request, permission, or order for the relevant period, and the respondent's explanations were contradictory. As the DGAP methodology and calculations were not disputed, the profiteering computation was accepted and the amount for 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 was held recoverable with interest. Because the recipients were not identifiable, the amount had to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Funds, and penalty was declined since the penal provision applied only prospectively from 01.01.2020.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
