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...
Power to review versus Power to rectify - cancellation of GST registration - the appellate authority erroneously exercised its power under Section 161 of the Act. The court emphasized that Section 161, akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allows rectification of errors apparent on the record, not a comprehensive review or rewriting of the decision. The appellate authority, in this case, overstepped its bounds by effectively reviewing the entire decision under the guise of rectification, which is legally impermissible. - HC
Power to review versus Power to rectify - cancellation of GST registration - the appellate authority erroneously exercised its power under Section 161 of the Act. The court emphasized that Section 161, akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allows rectification of errors apparent on the record, not a comprehensive review or rewriting of the decision. The appellate authority, in this case, overstepped its bounds by effectively reviewing the entire decision under the guise of rectification, which is legally impermissible. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.