Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Project-wise anti-profiteering analysis under GST upheld where the Tribunal accepted a case-specific methodology for comparing pre-GST and post-GST ITC, allocated the benefit across similarly situated homebuyers, and rejected objections on natural justice, scope of inquiry, and time limits. It found that additional input tax credit had arisen in the project, that the respondent had not passed on the full recipient-specific benefit, and that excess benefit given to some buyers could not offset shortfall owed to others. The balance amount was sustained with 18% compensatory interest, but penalty was declined because the penal provision was held inapplicable to the period in question.
Project-wise anti-profiteering analysis under GST upheld where the Tribunal accepted a case-specific methodology for comparing pre-GST and post-GST ITC, allocated the benefit across similarly situated homebuyers, and rejected objections on natural justice, scope of inquiry, and time limits. It found that additional input tax credit had arisen in the project, that the respondent had not passed on the full recipient-specific benefit, and that excess benefit given to some buyers could not offset shortfall owed to others. The balance amount was sustained with 18% compensatory interest, but penalty was declined because the penal provision was held inapplicable to the period in question.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.