Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The respondent commenced a real estate project "Swastik Heights" in the post-GST regime, with commencement certificate issued on 08.03.2018 and GST registration effective from 27.02.2018. Initially, GST was charged at 8% with input tax credit (ITC). From 01.04.2019, the respondent had the option to charge either 8% GST with ITC or 1% without ITC, but continued charging 8% with ITC. The Commission observed that since the project commenced in the post-GST period, there was no benefit of rate reduction or additional ITC compared to the pre-GST period that the respondent was obligated to pass on to buyers u/s 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the allegations of profiteering were found untenable, and proceedings were dropped.
The respondent commenced a real estate project "Swastik Heights" in the post-GST regime, with commencement certificate issued on 08.03.2018 and GST registration effective from 27.02.2018. Initially, GST was charged at 8% with input tax credit (ITC). From 01.04.2019, the respondent had the option to charge either 8% GST with ITC or 1% without ITC, but continued charging 8% with ITC. The Commission observed that since the project commenced in the post-GST period, there was no benefit of rate reduction or additional ITC compared to the pre-GST period that the respondent was obligated to pass on to buyers u/s 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the allegations of profiteering were found untenable, and proceedings were dropped.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
