Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Where rectification of an appellate order under s.107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 was refused in a dispute concerning deferred availment of ITC alleged to be barred by s.16(4), the governing Notification dated 08.10.2024 issued under s.148 was held to clarify both entitlement and procedure for rectification where ITC was treated as wrongly availed solely due to s.16(4), but the taxpayer may be eligible under s.16(5) or s.16(6). Since the rectification applications were founded on this Notification, the appellate authority was required to reconsider the request in light of the prevailing legal framework; consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. - HC
Where rectification of an appellate order under s.107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 was refused in a dispute concerning deferred availment of ITC alleged to be barred by s.16(4), the governing Notification dated 08.10.2024 issued under s.148 was held to clarify both entitlement and procedure for rectification where ITC was treated as wrongly availed solely due to s.16(4), but the taxpayer may be eligible under s.16(5) or s.16(6). Since the rectification applications were founded on this Notification, the appellate authority was required to reconsider the request in light of the prevailing legal framework; consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
