Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
