Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
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...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
