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...
Res judicata barred a fresh anti-profiteering complaint concerning the same project, same respondent and same period because profiteering in "Migsun Wynn" had already been investigated by the DGAP, finally adjudicated by the NAA, and affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal held that the complainant's alleged profiteering was already included in the earlier quantified amount, so reopening the same cause of action would create parallel proceedings and amount to abuse of process. As the complaint was also withdrawn, the proceedings were held not maintainable, no fresh investigation was required, and the DGAP was directed to take no further action.
Res judicata barred a fresh anti-profiteering complaint concerning the same project, same respondent and same period because profiteering in "Migsun Wynn" had already been investigated by the DGAP, finally adjudicated by the NAA, and affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal held that the complainant's alleged profiteering was already included in the earlier quantified amount, so reopening the same cause of action would create parallel proceedings and amount to abuse of process. As the complaint was also withdrawn, the proceedings were held not maintainable, no fresh investigation was required, and the DGAP was directed to take no further action.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
