COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
Section 153C jurisdiction requires timely deemed search and assessee-specific satisfaction material; otherwise reassessment must use the proper statut...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
681 to 700 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Disallowance of CENVAT credit claimed by the appellant on various inputs and input services. The key points are: The credit was denied as the inputs and services did not qualify u/rs 2(k) and 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, due to the exclusion clauses. The decisions cited by the appellant were not relevant. The Bombay High Court and Supreme Court affirmed that goods/services excluded under the definition cannot be covered by referring to the main clause. Regarding construction materials, they fall under the exclusion clause for goods used for building construction. The appellant failed to prove the activities were for renovation/repair of an existing factory, as required for the inclusion clause. The credit on security and manpower services after production commenced was allowed, as it could not be attributed to factory setup. The demand needs re-determination, and the penalty u/r 15(1) was set aside, with the appeal partly allowed.
Disallowance of CENVAT credit claimed by the appellant on various inputs and input services. The key points are: The credit was denied as the inputs and services did not qualify u/rs 2(k) and 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, due to the exclusion clauses. The decisions cited by the appellant were not relevant. The Bombay High Court and Supreme Court affirmed that goods/services excluded under the definition cannot be covered by referring to the main clause. Regarding construction materials, they fall under the exclusion clause for goods used for building construction. The appellant failed to prove the activities were for renovation/repair of an existing factory, as required for the inclusion clause. The credit on security and manpower services after production commenced was allowed, as it could not be attributed to factory setup. The demand needs re-determination, and the penalty u/r 15(1) was set aside, with the appeal partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
