Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Sale advances supported by a seized agreement, receipt and subsequent conveyance were treated as explained sale consideration rather than unexplained money under section 69A. The notes state that any suppressed consideration would instead be considered under capital gains in the relevant assessment year, and the section 69A additions were vacated. For section 153C, the relevant date for exclusion is stated to be the search initiation date, not later receipt of seized material; the deeming provision is confined to identifying abated assessment years, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. The mechanical-approval challenge under section 153D also failed for lack of cogent supporting material. The consolidated satisfaction-note issue remained open.
Sale advances supported by a seized agreement, receipt and subsequent conveyance were treated as explained sale consideration rather than unexplained money under section 69A. The notes state that any suppressed consideration would instead be considered under capital gains in the relevant assessment year, and the section 69A additions were vacated. For section 153C, the relevant date for exclusion is stated to be the search initiation date, not later receipt of seized material; the deeming provision is confined to identifying abated assessment years, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. The mechanical-approval challenge under section 153D also failed for lack of cogent supporting material. The consolidated satisfaction-note issue remained open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.