Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 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 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.