Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.