Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4828 
Join Channel 
