Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the respondent contravened the anti-profiteering mandate by failing to pass on the incremental input tax credit benefit to homebuyers in a uniform and commensurate manner. It accepted the DGAP's computation that the post-GST ITC ratio increased, and ruled that any excess adjustment in some cases could not cure the shortfall in others, leaving the balance benefit refundable to eligible buyers. It further held that the profiteered amount, computed on values exclusive of GST but collected from buyers inclusive of GST, had to include the GST component. Interest at 18% per annum was directed on the amount not passed on, and penalty exposure under Section 171(3A) was recorded for the relevant period.
The Tribunal held that the respondent contravened the anti-profiteering mandate by failing to pass on the incremental input tax credit benefit to homebuyers in a uniform and commensurate manner. It accepted the DGAP's computation that the post-GST ITC ratio increased, and ruled that any excess adjustment in some cases could not cure the shortfall in others, leaving the balance benefit refundable to eligible buyers. It further held that the profiteered amount, computed on values exclusive of GST but collected from buyers inclusive of GST, had to include the GST component. Interest at 18% per annum was directed on the amount not passed on, and penalty exposure under Section 171(3A) was recorded for the relevant period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.