Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
