Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Input tax credit could not be denied on the entire tax component merely because depreciation was claimed on the unavailed portion. The HC held that section 16(3) bars credit only to the extent depreciation is claimed on the same tax component actually taken as credit, and not on the 50% portion that lapses under the banking-company scheme in section 17(4). Reading sections 16(3), 17(2) and 17(4) together, the Court found no double benefit where depreciation was claimed only on the lapsed credit. The show cause notices were quashed, and the adjudication order was interfered with only to that limited extent.
Input tax credit could not be denied on the entire tax component merely because depreciation was claimed on the unavailed portion. The HC held that section 16(3) bars credit only to the extent depreciation is claimed on the same tax component actually taken as credit, and not on the 50% portion that lapses under the banking-company scheme in section 17(4). Reading sections 16(3), 17(2) and 17(4) together, the Court found no double benefit where depreciation was claimed only on the lapsed credit. The show cause notices were quashed, and the adjudication order was interfered with only to that limited extent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
