Departmental appeal limitation after call-book recall preserves original filing, while documented correlation supports SAD refund on imported granules...
Income-tax prosecution fails when appellate remand removes its factual foundation; directors require company arraignment for vicarious criminal liabil...
Capital character of assignment consideration prevents taxation as residuary income, while unsupported interest-related expenditure remains non-deduct...
Make-available condition shields regional support-service receipts from Indian taxation where no independent capability or permanent establishment exi...
Transfer-pricing treatment of corporate guarantees and convertible loans followed prior-year consistency, with taxable foreign dividends excluded from...
Anti-profiteering under section 171 of the CGST Act requires a benefit arising from a GST rate reduction or additional input tax credit to be passed to recipients through a commensurate price reduction. For affordable apartments launched and booked after GST commenced, the agreed price already reflected applicable GST rates and no pre-GST CENVAT credit was available for comparison with post-GST input tax credit. Differential GST realisation from purchasers does not constitute a saving or profiteering benefit under section 171. A profiteering computation founded on alleged excess GST recovery was therefore rejected, as recovery of excess GST falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction; the excess amount was to be refunded in accordance with law.
Anti-profiteering under section 171 of the CGST Act requires a benefit arising from a GST rate reduction or additional input tax credit to be passed to recipients through a commensurate price reduction. For affordable apartments launched and booked after GST commenced, the agreed price already reflected applicable GST rates and no pre-GST CENVAT credit was available for comparison with post-GST input tax credit. Differential GST realisation from purchasers does not constitute a saving or profiteering benefit under section 171. A profiteering computation founded on alleged excess GST recovery was therefore rejected, as recovery of excess GST falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction; the excess amount was to be refunded in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.