Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Once GST was reduced, the seller remained under a statutory duty to pass on the benefit through commensurate price reduction, and regulated cinema ticket pricing did not displace scrutiny under anti-profiteering law. The Tribunal rejected reliance on Telangana cinema licensing orders and found no equitable relief because material facts had not been fully disclosed and the earlier High Court conditions were not shown to have been satisfied. It accepted the DGAP methodology, held that the base price should have been maintained after the tax cut, and found profiteering established. Interest was made recoverable only prospectively from 28.06.2019, while penalty was held inapplicable because the penalty provision came into force later.
Once GST was reduced, the seller remained under a statutory duty to pass on the benefit through commensurate price reduction, and regulated cinema ticket pricing did not displace scrutiny under anti-profiteering law. The Tribunal rejected reliance on Telangana cinema licensing orders and found no equitable relief because material facts had not been fully disclosed and the earlier High Court conditions were not shown to have been satisfied. It accepted the DGAP methodology, held that the base price should have been maintained after the tax cut, and found profiteering established. Interest was made recoverable only prospectively from 28.06.2019, while penalty was held inapplicable because the penalty provision came into force later.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
