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...
The AAR held that the applicant's hotel will not qualify as a "specified premises" for FY 2025-26 because, for FY 2024-25, the per-room combined charge under the American or Continental Plan did not exceed Rs.7,500 per day; accordingly restaurant services to walk-in guests remain taxable under the ordinary rate applicable to standalone restaurant supply. The Authority further held that if in any subsequent financial year a unit of accommodation is charged at above Rs.7,500 (inclusive of food under the applicable plan, even if itemised), the premises will be treated as "specified premises" for the next financial year and restaurant services to walk-in guests will attract 9% CGST + 9% SGST.
The AAR held that the applicant's hotel will not qualify as a "specified premises" for FY 2025-26 because, for FY 2024-25, the per-room combined charge under the American or Continental Plan did not exceed Rs.7,500 per day; accordingly restaurant services to walk-in guests remain taxable under the ordinary rate applicable to standalone restaurant supply. The Authority further held that if in any subsequent financial year a unit of accommodation is charged at above Rs.7,500 (inclusive of food under the applicable plan, even if itemised), the premises will be treated as "specified premises" for the next financial year and restaurant services to walk-in guests will attract 9% CGST + 9% SGST.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.