Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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.