Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 17(5)(d) restricts apportionment and blocking of credit solely in relation to goods or services used for construction of immovable property; it therefore does not apply to mere transfer of leasehold rights where no construction activity is shown, and such application is a non-application of mind. Section 74(1) may be invoked only where input tax credit was wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression; absent material establishing those elements and where inadvertent ITC use was reversed and tax discharged, a s.74(1) notice is without jurisdiction and relief ensues.
Section 17(5)(d) restricts apportionment and blocking of credit solely in relation to goods or services used for construction of immovable property; it therefore does not apply to mere transfer of leasehold rights where no construction activity is shown, and such application is a non-application of mind. Section 74(1) may be invoked only where input tax credit was wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression; absent material establishing those elements and where inadvertent ITC use was reversed and tax discharged, a s.74(1) notice is without jurisdiction and relief ensues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
