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 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.