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 ...
Denial of CENVAT credit distributed by the Head Office (Input Service Distributor) to a unit during April to June 2012. The denial was based on the ground that the credit was not distributed proportionately among all units based on their respective turnovers, resulting in excess credit distribution to the unit. The key points are: Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2016, there was no compulsion on the assessee to distribute the credit proportionately or to all units. Even if the entire credit was distributed to one unit, it cannot be denied. The situation was revenue neutral as the other units paid more duty than the attributed credit. The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that 100% credit availed by the appellant was in order as per the existing CENVAT Credit Rules during the relevant period. Based on judgments, it is settled that even if the credit is distributed to one unit only during the relevant period, it cannot be denied. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Denial of CENVAT credit distributed by the Head Office (Input Service Distributor) to a unit during April to June 2012. The denial was based on the ground that the credit was not distributed proportionately among all units based on their respective turnovers, resulting in excess credit distribution to the unit. The key points are: Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2016, there was no compulsion on the assessee to distribute the credit proportionately or to all units. Even if the entire credit was distributed to one unit, it cannot be denied. The situation was revenue neutral as the other units paid more duty than the attributed credit. The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that 100% credit availed by the appellant was in order as per the existing CENVAT Credit Rules during the relevant period. Based on judgments, it is settled that even if the credit is distributed to one unit only during the relevant period, it cannot be denied. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
