Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

ITC by Financial Institutions Section 17(4)

Anshul

A financial institution has option to reverse 50% ITC under Section 17(4) as per Rule 38 instead of proportionate reversal under Section 17(2) as per Rule 42. If it has not made reversal and was later pointed out by the department, then can it exercise option given in 17(4) or has to reverse as per Section 17(2)Rule 42 only ?

Can a taxpayer switch to 50% reversal under Section 17(4)/Rule 38 after earlier not reversing input tax? A financial institution asked whether, if it failed to reverse input tax credit earlier, it can now elect the 50% reversal option under Section 17(4)/Rule 38 instead of performing proportionate reversals under Section 17(2)/Rule 42. Respondents disagreed: one advised the 50% option is prospective and must be applied consistently from the start of the financial year, so past periods should follow Section 17(2)/Rule 42; the other argued there is no statutory filing requirement to notify the choice and the institution may still elect the 50% option, citing analogous CENVAT precedents. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues