The dispute concerned failure to reduce prices after GST. The Tribunal held that documentary evidence showed benefit was already transferred to buyers.
GSTAT held that no anti-profiteering violation arises where construction, agreement, and payments occur entirely in the GST regime. Since prices already factored ITC, no benefit was required to be passed on.
The issue involved a calculation error in the final order. The Tribunal clarified the correct per sq. ft. benefit including GST and directed proper computation.
Legal Analysis and Narrative Brief: Dale and Carrington Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. P.K. Prathapan and Others (Supreme Court of India) on 13th September, 2004 1. Part I: The Narrative Accounts In the sophisticated theater of corporate litigation, the technicalities of share allotments and board resolutions often serve as a veil for deeply personal […]
The issue was penalty for misreporting on sale of land classified as capital asset. The Tribunal held the issue was debatable and deleted the penalty.
The dispute involved incorrect invocation of valuation provisions by the AO. The Tribunal ruled that using Section 142A instead of 55A vitiated the assessment.
The issue was rejection of trust registration treating activities as commercial. The Tribunal held activities were charitable and directed grant of registration under Section 12AB.
The court held that the seized quantity was intermediate, making strict bail conditions under Section 37 inapplicable. It granted bail considering custody period and case facts. The ruling clarifies bail eligibility in such cases.
The Tribunal held that compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme qualifies as retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B). It ruled that the entire amount is a capital receipt and fully exempt from tax.
The tribunal held that insufficient stamping of a loan agreement does not invalidate insolvency proceedings. Default was established through other documentary evidence. The ruling emphasizes substance over technical defects.
