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...
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report in an anti-profiteering matter concerning construction services and additional input tax credit on the footing that the benefit had already been passed on to home-buyers by commensurate price reduction. After redetermination, the report found excess benefit had been passed to eligible buyers, and the differential amounts with interest due to the two complainants had been paid and acknowledged. As no other home-buyer objected to the report, no surviving basis remained to hold profiteering against the respondent, and no contravention of section 171 was made out.
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report in an anti-profiteering matter concerning construction services and additional input tax credit on the footing that the benefit had already been passed on to home-buyers by commensurate price reduction. After redetermination, the report found excess benefit had been passed to eligible buyers, and the differential amounts with interest due to the two complainants had been paid and acknowledged. As no other home-buyer objected to the report, no surviving basis remained to hold profiteering against the respondent, and no contravention of section 171 was made out.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.