Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The High Court upheld the levy of tax and penalty on the petitioner for fraudulent claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s 16 of the GST Act. The petitioner claimed ITC based on non-existent firms, later revealed by investigation. The court held that mere registration of firms does not entitle ITC if no actual supplies were made. Fraud vitiates proceedings, allowing authorities to reclaim wrongly availed benefits. The court found no illegality in the orders and dismissed the petition.
The High Court upheld the levy of tax and penalty on the petitioner for fraudulent claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s 16 of the GST Act. The petitioner claimed ITC based on non-existent firms, later revealed by investigation. The court held that mere registration of firms does not entitle ITC if no actual supplies were made. Fraud vitiates proceedings, allowing authorities to reclaim wrongly availed benefits. The court found no illegality in the orders and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
