Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 accepted the DGAP report in part, finding that the respondent had profiteered Rs. 6,88,770 for the period 27.07.2018-31.10.2018 and directed the respondent to deposit that profiteered amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund, to be apportioned equally between the Centre and States. The Tribunal held that the statutory provision imposing interest at 18% on profiteered amounts is not applicable retrospectively; it operates only from the date the amending rule came into force (post-28.06.2019), and therefore, because the profiteering occurred prior thereto, the respondent was not directed to pay interest. The application was disposed of accordingly.
The AT accepted the DGAP report in part, finding that the respondent had profiteered Rs. 6,88,770 for the period 27.07.2018-31.10.2018 and directed the respondent to deposit that profiteered amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund, to be apportioned equally between the Centre and States. The Tribunal held that the statutory provision imposing interest at 18% on profiteered amounts is not applicable retrospectively; it operates only from the date the amending rule came into force (post-28.06.2019), and therefore, because the profiteering occurred prior thereto, the respondent was not directed to pay interest. The application was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
