Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
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 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
