Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The AAR ruled that organizing physical/offline games or tournaments of contract bridge played for money does not constitute supply of 'specified actionable claims' u/s 2(102A) of the GST Act, 2017. Contract bridge is predominantly a game of skill, not chance. The organizer neither provides an online platform nor retains any platform fee from players' contributions. The money contributed by players is deposited in a common pool, and the organizer has no lien over it. Organizing a tournament and allowing participation against a fee qualifies as supply of services by the organizer to participants. However, even if playing bridge for money is considered a 'specified actionable claim', the organizer cannot be deemed a supplier since they do not have control over the pooled money. Therefore, the organizer is not liable to pay GST for organizing physical/offline contract bridge tournaments played for money.
The AAR ruled that organizing physical/offline games or tournaments of contract bridge played for money does not constitute supply of 'specified actionable claims' u/s 2(102A) of the GST Act, 2017. Contract bridge is predominantly a game of skill, not chance. The organizer neither provides an online platform nor retains any platform fee from players' contributions. The money contributed by players is deposited in a common pool, and the organizer has no lien over it. Organizing a tournament and allowing participation against a fee qualifies as supply of services by the organizer to participants. However, even if playing bridge for money is considered a 'specified actionable claim', the organizer cannot be deemed a supplier since they do not have control over the pooled money. Therefore, the organizer is not liable to pay GST for organizing physical/offline contract bridge tournaments played for money.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
