Approved gratuity fund provisions remain deductible despite general actual-payment requirements, preventing revision of the allowed gratuity deduction...
Verification of intangible software expenditure and duplicated disallowances requires record-based reassessment before depreciation and income computa...
Cash receipt aggregation requires a single transaction, event or occasion; separate partner capital contributions cannot attract cash-receipt penaltie...
The High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) on zero-rated supplies. The only ground for denying refund by the appellate authority was that no balance was available in the electronic credit ledger when the petitioners became entitled to the refund, as the carried forward CENVAT credit from the earlier regime was approved later. This would be contrary to Section 140(1) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the orders denying refund were quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) on zero-rated supplies. The only ground for denying refund by the appellate authority was that no balance was available in the electronic credit ledger when the petitioners became entitled to the refund, as the carried forward CENVAT credit from the earlier regime was approved later. This would be contrary to Section 140(1) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the orders denying refund were quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
