Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
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.