Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.