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...
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.