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...
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.