Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AAR held that liquidated damages paid by the applicant to the concessionaire under the concession agreement do not constitute consideration for a taxable supply and are not subject to GST; accordingly, the concessionaire is not entitled to avail input tax credit in respect of such receipts. The Authority applied Circular No.178/10/2022-GST reasoning that where damages merely compensate for loss without any express or implied agreement by the recipient to tolerate or perform acts for the payer, such payments are a monetary compensation flow and not taxable. AAR further noted CBIC clarification on penal charges as analogous, observing the charges enforce contractual discipline for breaches. No other questions required adjudication.
AAR held that liquidated damages paid by the applicant to the concessionaire under the concession agreement do not constitute consideration for a taxable supply and are not subject to GST; accordingly, the concessionaire is not entitled to avail input tax credit in respect of such receipts. The Authority applied Circular No.178/10/2022-GST reasoning that where damages merely compensate for loss without any express or implied agreement by the recipient to tolerate or perform acts for the payer, such payments are a monetary compensation flow and not taxable. AAR further noted CBIC clarification on penal charges as analogous, observing the charges enforce contractual discipline for breaches. No other questions required adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.