Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
