Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 96092 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.