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...
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.