Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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...
Disciplinary proceeding against the govt officer - Punishment of withholding of 10% of monthly pension for a period of three years - misconduct - failure to maintain absolute integrity - The Bombay High Court in 2024 quashed the punishment order dated April 26, 2013, against a petitioner, which had imposed a withholding of 10% of monthly pension for three years, as well as the judgment dated January 23, 2020, by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court found that the punishment was not sustainable due to the absence of proof of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss to the government, and that there was no violation of the specified Conduct Rules under which the petitioner was charged.
Disciplinary proceeding against the govt officer - Punishment of withholding of 10% of monthly pension for a period of three years - misconduct - failure to maintain absolute integrity - The Bombay High Court in 2024 quashed the punishment order dated April 26, 2013, against a petitioner, which had imposed a withholding of 10% of monthly pension for three years, as well as the judgment dated January 23, 2020, by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court found that the punishment was not sustainable due to the absence of proof of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss to the government, and that there was no violation of the specified Conduct Rules under which the petitioner was charged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
