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 addressed the extension of due dates u/s 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It examined the provisions related to the time limit prescribed u/s 73 and the invocation of Section 168A, considering the "force majeure" condition. The Court observed that, notwithstanding Section 16(4), for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21, the registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit in any return filed u/s 39 up to November 30, 2021. The amendments brought by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, rendered the challenge in the writ petition redundant. The petitioner is entitled to avail the input tax credit benefit for the relevant period, subject to the conditions prescribed in the newly inserted Sections 16(5) and 16(6). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent jurisdictional officer for appropriate orders.
The High Court addressed the extension of due dates u/s 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It examined the provisions related to the time limit prescribed u/s 73 and the invocation of Section 168A, considering the "force majeure" condition. The Court observed that, notwithstanding Section 16(4), for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21, the registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit in any return filed u/s 39 up to November 30, 2021. The amendments brought by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, rendered the challenge in the writ petition redundant. The petitioner is entitled to avail the input tax credit benefit for the relevant period, subject to the conditions prescribed in the newly inserted Sections 16(5) and 16(6). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent jurisdictional officer for appropriate orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.