Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC ruled against the promoter's attempt to deduct GST loss of Rs. 11,40,376/- from the refund amount following apartment cancellation. The court found no contractual provision in the Sale and Construction Agreements for GST deduction upon cancellation. The promoter's initial communication only mentioned 10% cancellation charges, revealing GST loss deduction only after the allottee refused to purchase an alternative apartment. The promoter failed to prove double GST payment for the same apartment. The court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's order allowing withdrawal of pre-deposit amount with accrued interest, directing the allottee to provide biweekly updates on refund application progress. Appeal dismissed.
HC ruled against the promoter's attempt to deduct GST loss of Rs. 11,40,376/- from the refund amount following apartment cancellation. The court found no contractual provision in the Sale and Construction Agreements for GST deduction upon cancellation. The promoter's initial communication only mentioned 10% cancellation charges, revealing GST loss deduction only after the allottee refused to purchase an alternative apartment. The promoter failed to prove double GST payment for the same apartment. The court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's order allowing withdrawal of pre-deposit amount with accrued interest, directing the allottee to provide biweekly updates on refund application progress. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
