Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
