Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
HC held that a minor clerical error in GST documentation - specifically, the mention of petitioner's Bombay office GSTN instead of Delhi office GSTN on invoices - cannot be grounds for denying Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2)(aa) of CGST Act, 2017. The court noted that petitioner's name was correctly mentioned on invoices and no other entity had claimed the ITC on these purchases. The impugned Order dated June 28, 2024 was set aside, allowing petitioner to avail the ITC, as denying credit for such a minor error would cause substantial financial loss. Petition partly allowed.
HC held that a minor clerical error in GST documentation - specifically, the mention of petitioner's Bombay office GSTN instead of Delhi office GSTN on invoices - cannot be grounds for denying Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2)(aa) of CGST Act, 2017. The court noted that petitioner's name was correctly mentioned on invoices and no other entity had claimed the ITC on these purchases. The impugned Order dated June 28, 2024 was set aside, allowing petitioner to avail the ITC, as denying credit for such a minor error would cause substantial financial loss. Petition partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
