Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
