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 ...
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in a petition challenging the blocking of input tax credit under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, relating to alleged non-existent suppliers. The Court emphasized that Rule 36 requires documentary evidence for claiming input tax credit, and fact-finding on the genuineness of invoices and related records falls within the competence of the adjudicating authority. It held that Rule 86A mandates a reasoned, objective determination based on material evidence before disallowing credit, not mere suspicion. Given the factual nature of the dispute, the HC remanded the matter to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's explanation with an opportunity of hearing within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, leaving factual adjudication and verification to the statutory authorities.
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in a petition challenging the blocking of input tax credit under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, relating to alleged non-existent suppliers. The Court emphasized that Rule 36 requires documentary evidence for claiming input tax credit, and fact-finding on the genuineness of invoices and related records falls within the competence of the adjudicating authority. It held that Rule 86A mandates a reasoned, objective determination based on material evidence before disallowing credit, not mere suspicion. Given the factual nature of the dispute, the HC remanded the matter to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's explanation with an opportunity of hearing within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, leaving factual adjudication and verification to the statutory authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
