Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Rectification of Mistake - Applicant submits that the lower authority (AAR) had held that their activity would qualify as supply of goods attracting 12% whereas in the impugned order dated 27.9.2020, their activity has been classified as attracting 18% - A mistake apparent from the record is one to point out and for which no elaborate argument is required. It must be a glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. - Section 102 of the CGST Act cannot be pressed into play in order to make a revision in a matter on which there could be two plausible interpretations - AAAR
Rectification of Mistake - Applicant submits that the lower authority (AAR) had held that their activity would qualify as supply of goods attracting 12% whereas in the impugned order dated 27.9.2020, their activity has been classified as attracting 18% - A mistake apparent from the record is one to point out and for which no elaborate argument is required. It must be a glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. - Section 102 of the CGST Act cannot be pressed into play in order to make a revision in a matter on which there could be two plausible interpretations - AAAR
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.