Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
