Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96177 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 accepted the re-investigation report on anti-profiteering, holding that the respondent had failed to commensurately pass on the input tax credit benefit and had thereby contravened the anti-profiteering obligation. It relied on the quantified balance worked out after crediting benefits already passed to home-buyers and directed return of the remaining profiteered amount with interest at 18% from the date of collection until repayment. Separately, it held that the applicant's grievance over interest on money retained after cancellation of allotment arose from a different dispute already pursued before the RERA forum and fell outside the statutory scope of anti-profiteering proceedings, leaving that claim to the appropriate forum.
The Tribunal accepted the re-investigation report on anti-profiteering, holding that the respondent had failed to commensurately pass on the input tax credit benefit and had thereby contravened the anti-profiteering obligation. It relied on the quantified balance worked out after crediting benefits already passed to home-buyers and directed return of the remaining profiteered amount with interest at 18% from the date of collection until repayment. Separately, it held that the applicant's grievance over interest on money retained after cancellation of allotment arose from a different dispute already pursued before the RERA forum and fell outside the statutory scope of anti-profiteering proceedings, leaving that claim to the appropriate forum.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.