Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Profiteering - construction service - Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - The Authority finds that, had the Respondent excluded the land value from the demand raised to his buyers, the value of land would have been excluded from the preview of profiteering. Therefore, the Authority finds that the facts or the cases relied upon by the Respondent are different from the present case. Hence, the Authority finds that this contention of the Respondent regarding exclusion of land value being untenable cannot be accepted. - the Authority determines the profiteered amount for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, in the instant case, as Rs.1,07,67,330/- for the project 'MJR Clique Hydra'. - NAPA
Profiteering - construction service - Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - The Authority finds that, had the Respondent excluded the land value from the demand raised to his buyers, the value of land would have been excluded from the preview of profiteering. Therefore, the Authority finds that the facts or the cases relied upon by the Respondent are different from the present case. Hence, the Authority finds that this contention of the Respondent regarding exclusion of land value being untenable cannot be accepted. - the Authority determines the profiteered amount for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, in the instant case, as Rs.1,07,67,330/- for the project 'MJR Clique Hydra'. - NAPA
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
