Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
