Allocation of registration charges: contractual clause overriding statutory presumption allowed as deduction against capital gain after unrebutted doc...
Expenditure tied to investments yielding exempt income restricted to attributable costs; broader disallowance disallowed and adjustments to WDV and mi...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties an...
Classification of printed technical documents: specific Chapter 49.01 entry prevails, enabling claimed customs exemptions for imported manuals and rep...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5281 to 5300 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In a post-GST real estate project, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP report and rejected the anti-profiteering objection because the flat booking, construction agreement, sale deed, and full payment all occurred in the GST era, while the building permit and RERA registration were also obtained after GST began. Applying the principle that no comparative pre-GST to post-GST input tax credit benefit arises where the entire project activity and buyer transaction are post-GST, it found no basis for commensurate price reduction under Section 171 and no profiteering. The Tribunal also rejected the claim to a 1% affordable housing rate, holding that the concessional rate applied only from 01.04.2019 and did not assist a transaction completed earlier.
In a post-GST real estate project, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP report and rejected the anti-profiteering objection because the flat booking, construction agreement, sale deed, and full payment all occurred in the GST era, while the building permit and RERA registration were also obtained after GST began. Applying the principle that no comparative pre-GST to post-GST input tax credit benefit arises where the entire project activity and buyer transaction are post-GST, it found no basis for commensurate price reduction under Section 171 and no profiteering. The Tribunal also rejected the claim to a 1% affordable housing rate, holding that the concessional rate applied only from 01.04.2019 and did not assist a transaction completed earlier.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.