The ruling examines whether construction services for machinery foundations qualify for ITC. It holds that such foundations are integral to plant and machinery and not barred under Section 17(5). The decision clarifies eligibility where structures directly support manufacturing equipment.
The issue was whether ITC on construction services for machinery support is restricted. The ruling held that such foundation forms part of plant and machinery, making ITC admissible.
The application was dismissed because the tax liability had already been determined and challenged before the High Court. The Authority ruled that parallel proceedings are not permissible.
The Authority held that contribution of leasehold land and constructed property to an LLP is not a sale of immovable property. It constitutes a supply of service as consideration exists in the form of profit-sharing rights.
The Authority held that processing activities like crushing and sizing do not create a new product with distinct characteristics. Since the mineral remains unchanged, the activity does not qualify as manufacture.
The Authority dismissed the Departments appeal, confirming that geomembranes are textile products. The ruling relied on established judicial precedent and the product’s manufacturing process involving weaving.
The case examined whether sanction by JCIT was valid for reassessment beyond four years. The court held that such approval was invalid, making the notices unsustainable.
The case examined whether Tribunal approval was required for extending preference share redemption. It was held that such extension within 20 years does not require NCLT intervention and can be done with shareholder consent.
The court held that failure to grant a personal hearing violated statutory provisions and natural justice, invalidating the proceedings. It ruled that such defects cannot be cured at the appellate stage.
The court held that parties cannot introduce additional evidence as a matter of right under Rule 29. The ITAT’s acceptance of Revenue-filed evidence and remand order was set aside as beyond jurisdiction.
