Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
A High Court held that the six-month time limit for filing a rectification application under Notification No. 22/2024 is procedural and cannot defeat a substantive input tax credit benefit recognised by the retrospective insertion of Sections 16(5) and 16(6). On that basis, rejection of the application as time-barred was not sustained, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration on merits after notice. The respondent was permitted to verify actual entitlement, including whether input tax credit had in fact been availed and whether other statutory conditions were met.
A High Court held that the six-month time limit for filing a rectification application under Notification No. 22/2024 is procedural and cannot defeat a substantive input tax credit benefit recognised by the retrospective insertion of Sections 16(5) and 16(6). On that basis, rejection of the application as time-barred was not sustained, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration on merits after notice. The respondent was permitted to verify actual entitlement, including whether input tax credit had in fact been availed and whether other statutory conditions were met.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
