Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The High Court allowed the petition in part and directed the respondents to restore the input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 9,83,53,032/- in the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger within four weeks. The Court held that the reversal of ITC by the respondents during the summons proceedings without an adjudication process was a violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Sections 16, 41, and 73/74 of the CGST Act. The ITC was initially claimed by the petitioner for exports and was debited twice, once during the summons proceedings and again when filing the refund application, leading to the Court's directive to restore the ITC amount.
The High Court allowed the petition in part and directed the respondents to restore the input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 9,83,53,032/- in the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger within four weeks. The Court held that the reversal of ITC by the respondents during the summons proceedings without an adjudication process was a violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Sections 16, 41, and 73/74 of the CGST Act. The ITC was initially claimed by the petitioner for exports and was debited twice, once during the summons proceedings and again when filing the refund application, leading to the Court's directive to restore the ITC amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
