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...
Proper officer - Jurisdiction of Initiate investigation proceedings by the Central GST and State GST authorities simultaneously - cross-empowerment - The Court found that in the absence of specific notifications enabling cross-empowerment, except for purposes related to tax refunds, the proceedings initiated by an authority (either Central or State) against taxpayers not assigned to them are without jurisdiction. - While the Court quashed the impugned proceedings for lacking jurisdiction, it also directed the respective authorities (Central or State) to whom the petitioners are administratively assigned to initiate fresh proceedings, if warranted, in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. The period during which the impugned proceedings were initiated and pending litigation was to be excluded from the calculation of any limitation period for initiating new proceedings.
Proper officer - Jurisdiction of Initiate investigation proceedings by the Central GST and State GST authorities simultaneously - cross-empowerment - The Court found that in the absence of specific notifications enabling cross-empowerment, except for purposes related to tax refunds, the proceedings initiated by an authority (either Central or State) against taxpayers not assigned to them are without jurisdiction. - While the Court quashed the impugned proceedings for lacking jurisdiction, it also directed the respective authorities (Central or State) to whom the petitioners are administratively assigned to initiate fresh proceedings, if warranted, in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. The period during which the impugned proceedings were initiated and pending litigation was to be excluded from the calculation of any limitation period for initiating new proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
