Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
The AT dismissed the DGAP's profiteering report and closed proceedings against the Respondent under Section 171, CGST Act, holding there is no admissible material establishing that the Respondent retained an unlawful benefit of input tax credit by failing to reduce prices. The AT noted mixed SKU price movements and absence of document evidence demonstrating overall profiteering; enquiries of 56 recipients showed 50 received ITC-related benefit, one was unregistered, and five were unreachable due to closure/liquidation/death. Consequently the DGAP's concluded profiteering amount was not accepted, no liability was fastened on the Respondent, and the complaint was thereby disposed.
The AT dismissed the DGAP's profiteering report and closed proceedings against the Respondent under Section 171, CGST Act, holding there is no admissible material establishing that the Respondent retained an unlawful benefit of input tax credit by failing to reduce prices. The AT noted mixed SKU price movements and absence of document evidence demonstrating overall profiteering; enquiries of 56 recipients showed 50 received ITC-related benefit, one was unregistered, and five were unreachable due to closure/liquidation/death. Consequently the DGAP's concluded profiteering amount was not accepted, no liability was fastened on the Respondent, and the complaint was thereby disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.