Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
