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 allowed the petition and held that Input Tax Credit is an indefeasible right accruing on the date of purchase; therefore the CBITC clarification (Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST Pt.2) which confined entitlement to refunds only for applications filed up to 18.07.2022 is ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court found that Notification dated 13.07.2022 contains no embargo and that section 54 of the Act of 2017 affords a two-year limitation to claim refund; consequently the impugned provision was quashed to the extent it curtailed refund claims post-18.07.2022 and the petitioner's challenge was allowed.
The HC allowed the petition and held that Input Tax Credit is an indefeasible right accruing on the date of purchase; therefore the CBITC clarification (Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST Pt.2) which confined entitlement to refunds only for applications filed up to 18.07.2022 is ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court found that Notification dated 13.07.2022 contains no embargo and that section 54 of the Act of 2017 affords a two-year limitation to claim refund; consequently the impugned provision was quashed to the extent it curtailed refund claims post-18.07.2022 and the petitioner's challenge was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
