Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
In real estate anti-profiteering analysis, the governing approach is to test project-level GST savings by comparing credit availed to purchase value in the pre-GST and post-GST periods. Applying that method, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP's use of purchase-value ratios, excluded reversed credit and units outside the relevant pre-occupancy sale pool, and held that no additional benefit had accrued to the developer. It also accepted that ledger adjustments could evidence passing on of input tax credit, and that the EPC contractor was not the supplier to homebuyers. The objections to methodology, verification, and alleged inconsistency were rejected, and no contravention of Section 171 was found.
In real estate anti-profiteering analysis, the governing approach is to test project-level GST savings by comparing credit availed to purchase value in the pre-GST and post-GST periods. Applying that method, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP's use of purchase-value ratios, excluded reversed credit and units outside the relevant pre-occupancy sale pool, and held that no additional benefit had accrued to the developer. It also accepted that ledger adjustments could evidence passing on of input tax credit, and that the EPC contractor was not the supplier to homebuyers. The objections to methodology, verification, and alleged inconsistency were rejected, and no contravention of Section 171 was found.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
