Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
