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...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
