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 ...
The AT held that, following consideration of the DGAP report and documentary verification, the DGAP's methodology for apportioning ITC to project costs was appropriate and captured the economic effect of GST implementation. The Tribunal found that no reduction in GST rate nor incremental benefit of Input Tax Credit accrued to the Respondent in respect of the three impugned projects; accordingly, the requirements of Section 171 of the CGST Act are not attracted. Proceedings against the Respondent in relation to those projects were dismissed and the application disposed of.
The AT held that, following consideration of the DGAP report and documentary verification, the DGAP's methodology for apportioning ITC to project costs was appropriate and captured the economic effect of GST implementation. The Tribunal found that no reduction in GST rate nor incremental benefit of Input Tax Credit accrued to the Respondent in respect of the three impugned projects; accordingly, the requirements of Section 171 of the CGST Act are not attracted. Proceedings against the Respondent in relation to those projects were dismissed and the application disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.