Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
