Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 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 held that the refund of input tax credit is limited to the tax rate applicable on the principal input, specifically crude sunflower oil. Relying on precedent, the Court affirmed that Circular No. 135/05/2020 applies only where input tax credit accumulation arises from a reduction in tax rates. The Court further concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 54 when the input and output supplies are identical. This interpretation aligns with the legal principles established in a prior HC ruling involving a similar issue. Consequently, the petition was allowed, confirming that refund claims must adhere strictly to the statutory and circular provisions governing input tax credit refunds.
The HC held that the refund of input tax credit is limited to the tax rate applicable on the principal input, specifically crude sunflower oil. Relying on precedent, the Court affirmed that Circular No. 135/05/2020 applies only where input tax credit accumulation arises from a reduction in tax rates. The Court further concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 54 when the input and output supplies are identical. This interpretation aligns with the legal principles established in a prior HC ruling involving a similar issue. Consequently, the petition was allowed, confirming that refund claims must adhere strictly to the statutory and circular provisions governing input tax credit refunds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
