Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Allegations concern whether a supplier passed the benefit of input tax credit to purchasers by reducing prices; this requires verification of documentary evidence and calculation of the claimed Rs.173 per buyer and alleged Rs.32.78 per sq ft profiteering. Limitation objections under sections governing recovery of tax were raised by the respondent and must be examined against the investigative record. The Appellate Tribunal directed re investigation by the DGAP under the procedural rule for further factual and accounting scrutiny to determine if a commensurate price reduction was effected and whether statutory time limit defenses bar recovery.
Allegations concern whether a supplier passed the benefit of input tax credit to purchasers by reducing prices; this requires verification of documentary evidence and calculation of the claimed Rs.173 per buyer and alleged Rs.32.78 per sq ft profiteering. Limitation objections under sections governing recovery of tax were raised by the respondent and must be examined against the investigative record. The Appellate Tribunal directed re investigation by the DGAP under the procedural rule for further factual and accounting scrutiny to determine if a commensurate price reduction was effected and whether statutory time limit defenses bar recovery.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
