Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
