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...
Project-wise anti-profiteering analysis under GST upheld where the Tribunal accepted a case-specific methodology for comparing pre-GST and post-GST ITC, allocated the benefit across similarly situated homebuyers, and rejected objections on natural justice, scope of inquiry, and time limits. It found that additional input tax credit had arisen in the project, that the respondent had not passed on the full recipient-specific benefit, and that excess benefit given to some buyers could not offset shortfall owed to others. The balance amount was sustained with 18% compensatory interest, but penalty was declined because the penal provision was held inapplicable to the period in question.
Project-wise anti-profiteering analysis under GST upheld where the Tribunal accepted a case-specific methodology for comparing pre-GST and post-GST ITC, allocated the benefit across similarly situated homebuyers, and rejected objections on natural justice, scope of inquiry, and time limits. It found that additional input tax credit had arisen in the project, that the respondent had not passed on the full recipient-specific benefit, and that excess benefit given to some buyers could not offset shortfall owed to others. The balance amount was sustained with 18% compensatory interest, but penalty was declined because the penal provision was held inapplicable to the period in question.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.