Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
