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 - Sanitary Napkin - allegation is that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of exemption of GST on Sanitary Napkin by way of commensurate reduction in price - , since the recipients of the benefit, as determined, other than the Applicant, are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,094/- in two equal parts of Rs. 1047/-each in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Uttar Pradesh Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (e) of the CGST Rules 2017, along with interest payable @ 18% to be calculated from the dates on which the above amount was realized by the Respondent from, his recipients till the date of its deposit in the said fund. - NAPA
Profiteering - Sanitary Napkin - allegation is that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of exemption of GST on Sanitary Napkin by way of commensurate reduction in price - , since the recipients of the benefit, as determined, other than the Applicant, are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,094/- in two equal parts of Rs. 1047/-each in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Uttar Pradesh Consumer Welfare Fund as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (e) of the CGST Rules 2017, along with interest payable @ 18% to be calculated from the dates on which the above amount was realized by the Respondent from, his recipients till the date of its deposit in the said fund. - NAPA
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.