Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Capital gain arising on transfer of land - STCG arising out of the transfer of non-agricultural land - real owner - The appellant asserts that the land was purchased on behalf of the company, as evidenced by a development agreement executed between the appellant and the company. However, the Tribunal finds no explicit indication in the documents that the appellant was authorized by the company to purchase the land on its behalf. The absence of a memorandum of understanding or any explicit authorization leads the Tribunal to conclude that the land was purchased by the appellant individually, not on behalf of the company.
Capital gain arising on transfer of land - STCG arising out of the transfer of non-agricultural land - real owner - The appellant asserts that the land was purchased on behalf of the company, as evidenced by a development agreement executed between the appellant and the company. However, the Tribunal finds no explicit indication in the documents that the appellant was authorized by the company to purchase the land on its behalf. The absence of a memorandum of understanding or any explicit authorization leads the Tribunal to conclude that the land was purchased by the appellant individually, not on behalf of the company.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.