Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 16(5) was held to contain a non-obstante clause that overrides the time bar in Section 16(4) for the specified financial years, so input tax credit could not be denied solely for delay where the returns were filed before 30.11.2021. Because the impugned order rejected the claim only on the basis of Section 16(4), and the returns had been filed on 30.09.2020, the Court set aside the order-in-original and the show cause notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication under Section 16(5), leaving other contentions open.
Section 16(5) was held to contain a non-obstante clause that overrides the time bar in Section 16(4) for the specified financial years, so input tax credit could not be denied solely for delay where the returns were filed before 30.11.2021. Because the impugned order rejected the claim only on the basis of Section 16(4), and the returns had been filed on 30.09.2020, the Court set aside the order-in-original and the show cause notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication under Section 16(5), leaving other contentions open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
