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 held that Circular No. 135/15/2020-GST, which dealt with the refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) accumulated due to the Inverted Tax Structure, was in conflict with Section 54(3)(ii) of the Act. The Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal solely relying on this Circular, which did not withstand judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The High Court held that Circular No. 135/15/2020-GST, which dealt with the refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) accumulated due to the Inverted Tax Structure, was in conflict with Section 54(3)(ii) of the Act. The Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal solely relying on this Circular, which did not withstand judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.