Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 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 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
