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 quashed the attachment of the petitioner's banking account, following precedent established in Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries (2024). The Court determined that the petitioner's claim for input tax credit, while barred under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, was still within the limitation period prescribed by Section 16(5) of the same Act. The Court disposed of the petition on the same grounds as the precedent case, ruling that tax authorities cannot deny ITC claims that fall within the extended limitation period under Section 16(5), despite being outside the standard limitation period under Section 16(4). Petition allowed.
The HC quashed the attachment of the petitioner's banking account, following precedent established in Sri Ganapathi Pandi Industries (2024). The Court determined that the petitioner's claim for input tax credit, while barred under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, was still within the limitation period prescribed by Section 16(5) of the same Act. The Court disposed of the petition on the same grounds as the precedent case, ruling that tax authorities cannot deny ITC claims that fall within the extended limitation period under Section 16(5), despite being outside the standard limitation period under Section 16(4). Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
