Constitutional personal-liberty safeguards limit PMLA twin bail conditions where completed investigations lead to prolonged incarceration before trial...
Automated airline software subscriptions without human intervention fail technical-services characterisation and do not make available underlying tech...
Business support recruitment and training receipts qualify for presumptive business taxation, not professional taxation under technical consultancy ru...
Treaty exemption for foreign permanent-establishment management fees prevailed, while dividend expense disallowance remained limited to an accepted al...
Centralised assessment transfers: participation after requesting centralisation can bar technical jurisdictional challenges, while assessment disputes...
Binding precedent remains operative despite pending challenge, supporting deletion of interest disallowance when debt is converted into preference sha...
In a real estate anti-profiteering matter, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP report in full because the respondent unconditionally accepted the methodology, quantification and contravention finding, and the remaining profiteered amount for the period up to receipt of the Occupancy Certificate was ordered to be refunded to eligible homebuyers. It also upheld interest on the profiteered amount, holding that interest is payable from the dates of excess collection until actual refund. The penalty provision was held inapplicable because the alleged profiteering had ended before Section 171(3A) came into force, so no penalty was payable.
In a real estate anti-profiteering matter, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP report in full because the respondent unconditionally accepted the methodology, quantification and contravention finding, and the remaining profiteered amount for the period up to receipt of the Occupancy Certificate was ordered to be refunded to eligible homebuyers. It also upheld interest on the profiteered amount, holding that interest is payable from the dates of excess collection until actual refund. The penalty provision was held inapplicable because the alleged profiteering had ended before Section 171(3A) came into force, so no penalty was payable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.