Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
AT held that the DGAP investigation established that the Respondent did not avail any impermissible benefit of input tax credit in respect of post-GST real estate transactions and therefore did not contravene section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report dated 23.05.2025 and concluded there is no liability for anti-profiteering measures against the Respondent. Accordingly, the AT dismissed the allegation of contravention, recorded that no refund, penalty or adjustment under the anti-profiteering regime is warranted, and directed that the DGAP report be given effect as the operative finding in the proceedings.
AT held that the DGAP investigation established that the Respondent did not avail any impermissible benefit of input tax credit in respect of post-GST real estate transactions and therefore did not contravene section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report dated 23.05.2025 and concluded there is no liability for anti-profiteering measures against the Respondent. Accordingly, the AT dismissed the allegation of contravention, recorded that no refund, penalty or adjustment under the anti-profiteering regime is warranted, and directed that the DGAP report be given effect as the operative finding in the proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
