Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95916 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Blocked input tax credit on construction of immovable property remained unavailable where the taxpayer was engaged in renting immovable property, used works contract services for construction, and the credit fell within clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5). The Court also treated the claim as belated because the credit was not taken within the statutory time limit under Section 16. It held that a unilateral letter proposing availment did not amount to departmental approval, and that availing a much larger credit without concurrence justified invocation of fraud and suppression, the extended limitation period, and Section 74. The challenge to the common notice covering multiple tax periods also failed.
Blocked input tax credit on construction of immovable property remained unavailable where the taxpayer was engaged in renting immovable property, used works contract services for construction, and the credit fell within clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5). The Court also treated the claim as belated because the credit was not taken within the statutory time limit under Section 16. It held that a unilateral letter proposing availment did not amount to departmental approval, and that availing a much larger credit without concurrence justified invocation of fraud and suppression, the extended limitation period, and Section 74. The challenge to the common notice covering multiple tax periods also failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.