Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
