Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The SC upheld the High Court's determination that telecommunication towers do not constitute immovable property under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act and are therefore eligible for input tax credit. The petitioners' contention that the towers are movable equipment was accepted, rejecting the Revenue's denial of credit. The SC declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, finding no merit in the Revenue's challenge. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the availability of input tax credit on telecommunication towers.
The SC upheld the High Court's determination that telecommunication towers do not constitute immovable property under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act and are therefore eligible for input tax credit. The petitioners' contention that the towers are movable equipment was accepted, rejecting the Revenue's denial of credit. The SC declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, finding no merit in the Revenue's challenge. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the availability of input tax credit on telecommunication towers.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
