Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Dominant issue: whether the respondent violated Section 171 CGST by not passing on Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits. Reasoning: DGAP admitted partial pass-through of ITC (Rs. 91,45,350) but also identified a prima facie computation requiring Rs. 3,12,78,937 to be passed to 1,104 eligible home buyers; despite a reporting error, the authority held the obligation to remit the larger validated sum. Outcome: respondent ordered to pay Rs. 3,12,78,937 plus interest under Section 133(3)(B) CGST, refund within three months, and file compliance report with the jurisdictional commissioner and DGAP. - AT
Dominant issue: whether the respondent violated Section 171 CGST by not passing on Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits. Reasoning: DGAP admitted partial pass-through of ITC (Rs. 91,45,350) but also identified a prima facie computation requiring Rs. 3,12,78,937 to be passed to 1,104 eligible home buyers; despite a reporting error, the authority held the obligation to remit the larger validated sum. Outcome: respondent ordered to pay Rs. 3,12,78,937 plus interest under Section 133(3)(B) CGST, refund within three months, and file compliance report with the jurisdictional commissioner and DGAP. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
