Minimum alternate tax exclusions for pre-amendment banking companies and expatriate Indian branch salaries remain outside head office expenditure limi...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 of 96100 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 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.