Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
