Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Input tax credit was denied on the ground that returns for May 2018-March 2019 were not filed within the time limit under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that the subsequently introduced Section 16(5) creates an overriding entitlement, since it begins with a non obstante clause and imposes only the condition that the relevant returns be filed on or before 30 November 2021; upon such filing, the limitation under Section 16(4) becomes inapplicable. The earlier adverse order in prior proceedings challenging Section 16(4) did not bar relief, as Section 16(5) furnished a fresh statutory basis. Relief was granted and the petition was disposed of. - HC
Input tax credit was denied on the ground that returns for May 2018-March 2019 were not filed within the time limit under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that the subsequently introduced Section 16(5) creates an overriding entitlement, since it begins with a non obstante clause and imposes only the condition that the relevant returns be filed on or before 30 November 2021; upon such filing, the limitation under Section 16(4) becomes inapplicable. The earlier adverse order in prior proceedings challenging Section 16(4) did not bar relief, as Section 16(5) furnished a fresh statutory basis. Relief was granted and the petition was disposed of. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
