Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidenc...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2321 to 2340 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT upheld the DGAP's finding that the respondent failed to pass on a commensurate reduction in GST on restaurant services, concluding the statutory rebuttable presumption under s.171 CGST Act was not discharged and that the investigating authority permissibly examined all products supplied by the registered person. The Tribunal held the respondent violated s.171(1) (and thereby contravened s.171(3A)) by denying tax-rate benefits to consumers. However, because s.171(3A)'s penal provision took effect after the period of contravention, the AT declined to impose the retrospective penal sanction; liability for the breach was affirmed but no penalty was imposed under the later-enacted provision.
The AT upheld the DGAP's finding that the respondent failed to pass on a commensurate reduction in GST on restaurant services, concluding the statutory rebuttable presumption under s.171 CGST Act was not discharged and that the investigating authority permissibly examined all products supplied by the registered person. The Tribunal held the respondent violated s.171(1) (and thereby contravened s.171(3A)) by denying tax-rate benefits to consumers. However, because s.171(3A)'s penal provision took effect after the period of contravention, the AT declined to impose the retrospective penal sanction; liability for the breach was affirmed but no penalty was imposed under the later-enacted provision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
