Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Profiteering - construction services - The registration and approval of the projects and receipt of the payments had taken place in the post-GST regime and hence, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC. On this basis, the DGAP has reported that the Respondent had neither benefited from additional ITC nor had there been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period and therefore it did not qualify to be a case of profiteering - The instant case does not fall under the ambit of the Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. - NAPA
Profiteering - construction services - The registration and approval of the projects and receipt of the payments had taken place in the post-GST regime and hence, there was no pre-GST tax rate or ITC which could be compared with the post-GST tax rate and ITC. On this basis, the DGAP has reported that the Respondent had neither benefited from additional ITC nor had there been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period and therefore it did not qualify to be a case of profiteering - The instant case does not fall under the ambit of the Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. - NAPA
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
