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" ?
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
