Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
