Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Profiteering - Restaurant Services - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on - contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Respondent had increased the base prices of the items supplied by him to neutralise the effect of ITC of 9.11% which was not available to him after the rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017. - Respondent had increased the average output taxable value i.e. the base price by 10.45% to offset the denial of input tax credit of 9.11% - the Respondent liable for profiteering under Section 171 (1) of the above Act and directed him to deposit the profiteered amount vide order dated 16.11.2018. - The time limit prescribed under Rule 133 (1) is not mandatory and it is only directory. - NAPA
Profiteering - Restaurant Services - benefit of reduction in the rate of tax not passed on - contravention of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Respondent had increased the base prices of the items supplied by him to neutralise the effect of ITC of 9.11% which was not available to him after the rate reduction w.e.f. 15.11.2017. - Respondent had increased the average output taxable value i.e. the base price by 10.45% to offset the denial of input tax credit of 9.11% - the Respondent liable for profiteering under Section 171 (1) of the above Act and directed him to deposit the profiteered amount vide order dated 16.11.2018. - The time limit prescribed under Rule 133 (1) is not mandatory and it is only directory. - NAPA
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.