Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Additional input tax credit benefits in construction services must be passed to pre-GST homebuyers through commensurate price reductions under section 171(1) of the CGST Act. Applying the revised computation, including the pre-GST goods component, the determined benefit was quantified; however, documentary evidence accepted in the revised DGAP report showed that the supplier had passed on benefits exceeding that requirement to eligible homebuyers. The revised methodology therefore did not support a profiteering allegation because the full benefit had already been passed on in excess. The proceedings were disposed of with no contravention of section 171 established.
Additional input tax credit benefits in construction services must be passed to pre-GST homebuyers through commensurate price reductions under section 171(1) of the CGST Act. Applying the revised computation, including the pre-GST goods component, the determined benefit was quantified; however, documentary evidence accepted in the revised DGAP report showed that the supplier had passed on benefits exceeding that requirement to eligible homebuyers. The revised methodology therefore did not support a profiteering allegation because the full benefit had already been passed on in excess. The proceedings were disposed of with no contravention of section 171 established.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.