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...
The High Court quashed the order denying input tax credit and the consequential garnishee proceedings because the authority had not considered the later amendment to section 16, which extended the time-limit for availing input tax credit for specified years, or the CBIC clarification on its implementation. Following the approach adopted in earlier matters, the Court held that these subsequent legal developments had to be examined before a fresh decision could be made. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration in accordance with law, while the refund claim and all other contentions were left open.
The High Court quashed the order denying input tax credit and the consequential garnishee proceedings because the authority had not considered the later amendment to section 16, which extended the time-limit for availing input tax credit for specified years, or the CBIC clarification on its implementation. Following the approach adopted in earlier matters, the Court held that these subsequent legal developments had to be examined before a fresh decision could be made. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration in accordance with law, while the refund claim and all other contentions were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
