Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
In a post-GST construction-linked property transaction, the Tribunal held that phrases such as construction in the post-GST period and upfront payment of the full price do not require the flat to be fully built at agreement stage or payment to be made in one lump sum. It found that where booking, allotment, contracting, construction and payment all occurred during the GST regime, the pricing already reflected the post-GST ITC position, so no separate input tax credit benefit was claimable by the buyers and no locus existed to challenge the DGAP report on that basis. On the merits, the DGAP comparison showed no incremental ITC gain and therefore no contravention of Section 171 read with Rule 129(6).
In a post-GST construction-linked property transaction, the Tribunal held that phrases such as construction in the post-GST period and upfront payment of the full price do not require the flat to be fully built at agreement stage or payment to be made in one lump sum. It found that where booking, allotment, contracting, construction and payment all occurred during the GST regime, the pricing already reflected the post-GST ITC position, so no separate input tax credit benefit was claimable by the buyers and no locus existed to challenge the DGAP report on that basis. On the merits, the DGAP comparison showed no incremental ITC gain and therefore no contravention of Section 171 read with Rule 129(6).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
