Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
The HC held that telecommunication towers cannot be construed as immovable property falling within the ambit of Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, rendering them ineligible for input tax credit. Relying on the SC's decision in Bharti Airtel, the HC observed that telecommunication towers are movable equipment used in telecommunications, lacking the essential characteristics of immovable property. Section 17(5) specifically excludes telecommunication towers from the definition of "plant and machinery," indicating the statute does not envisage them as immovable property. Consequently, the denial of input tax credit on telecommunication towers by the respondents was held unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.
The HC held that telecommunication towers cannot be construed as immovable property falling within the ambit of Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, rendering them ineligible for input tax credit. Relying on the SC's decision in Bharti Airtel, the HC observed that telecommunication towers are movable equipment used in telecommunications, lacking the essential characteristics of immovable property. Section 17(5) specifically excludes telecommunication towers from the definition of "plant and machinery," indicating the statute does not envisage them as immovable property. Consequently, the denial of input tax credit on telecommunication towers by the respondents was held unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
