Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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.