Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The AAR ruled that the applicant cannot avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) on inputs and services used for constructing a concrete tower to support VCV lines for manufacturing EHV cables. Applying the Supreme Court's functionality test from Safari Retreats, the AAR determined that while a building may qualify as "plant" under Section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act, ITC is unavailable when construction is for the recipient's own use. The AAR found the applicant failed to prove the construction was not on their own account, breaking the ITC chain. The authority dismissed the applicant's reliance on various judgments as irrelevant, noting they primarily pertained to Income Tax matters rather than GST provisions.
The AAR ruled that the applicant cannot avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) on inputs and services used for constructing a concrete tower to support VCV lines for manufacturing EHV cables. Applying the Supreme Court's functionality test from Safari Retreats, the AAR determined that while a building may qualify as "plant" under Section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act, ITC is unavailable when construction is for the recipient's own use. The AAR found the applicant failed to prove the construction was not on their own account, breaking the ITC chain. The authority dismissed the applicant's reliance on various judgments as irrelevant, noting they primarily pertained to Income Tax matters rather than GST provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
