Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC set aside the appellate authority's non-speaking order that denied Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner on supplies from a supplier whose GST registration was cancelled retrospectively. The HC found the appellate order relied solely on retrospective cancellation without addressing documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner (tax invoices, e-way bills, transport and bank records, party ledgers) or whether statutory conditions for availing ITC were satisfied. Applying controlling precedent on similar facts, the court held retrospective cancellation alone cannot automatically deprive a recipient of ITC. The impugned order was quashed and the petition disposed of, remitting matters for fresh consideration consistent with this judgment.
HC set aside the appellate authority's non-speaking order that denied Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner on supplies from a supplier whose GST registration was cancelled retrospectively. The HC found the appellate order relied solely on retrospective cancellation without addressing documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner (tax invoices, e-way bills, transport and bank records, party ledgers) or whether statutory conditions for availing ITC were satisfied. Applying controlling precedent on similar facts, the court held retrospective cancellation alone cannot automatically deprive a recipient of ITC. The impugned order was quashed and the petition disposed of, remitting matters for fresh consideration consistent with this judgment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.