Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
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...
The AAR addressed entitlement to input tax credit on GST paid for a contractor-built breakwater and concluded ITC is disallowed because the supply was a works contract for construction of immovable property and does not meet the statutory exception for plant and machinery. The authority applied the statutory definition of plant and machinery rather than functionality tests from other statutes, found the works contract fell under the immovable-property exclusion, and held the applicant ineligible for ITC. The AAR declined to rule on supplier-centric rate-notification applicability because the ruling would bind the applicant but not the contractor.
The AAR addressed entitlement to input tax credit on GST paid for a contractor-built breakwater and concluded ITC is disallowed because the supply was a works contract for construction of immovable property and does not meet the statutory exception for plant and machinery. The authority applied the statutory definition of plant and machinery rather than functionality tests from other statutes, found the works contract fell under the immovable-property exclusion, and held the applicant ineligible for ITC. The AAR declined to rule on supplier-centric rate-notification applicability because the ruling would bind the applicant but not the contractor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
