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...
The High Court dismissed a review petition regarding a fraudulent Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) claim for inward supplies. The petitioner had obtained I.T.C. based on invoices from non-existent firms. Special Investigation Branch found the firms to be bogus with no actual supply of goods. Appellate authority's decision was upheld as it considered the evidence on record. The review petition was rejected as new evidence presented could have been submitted earlier and did not refute the findings. The court found no reason to review the earlier order and dismissed the petition. The case involved Order XLVII, Rule 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).
The High Court dismissed a review petition regarding a fraudulent Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) claim for inward supplies. The petitioner had obtained I.T.C. based on invoices from non-existent firms. Special Investigation Branch found the firms to be bogus with no actual supply of goods. Appellate authority's decision was upheld as it considered the evidence on record. The review petition was rejected as new evidence presented could have been submitted earlier and did not refute the findings. The court found no reason to review the earlier order and dismissed the petition. The case involved Order XLVII, Rule 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
