Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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.