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 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
