Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
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.