Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
