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...
The Supreme Court ruled on the refund of Stamp Duty for an un-executed conveyance deed u/s 47 (c) of the Act and Rules 21, 22A of Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. The appellant diligently pursued legal remedies and was denied refund on grounds of limitation. Evidence is not required with the application for refund u/s 47. The legal principle from THE COMMITTEE-GFIL VERSUS LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. was cited, emphasizing that the State should not rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens. The appellant's case warranted a refund as the expiry of limitation does not bar the right to claim refund. The appellant acted in good faith but was deceived by the Vendor, leading to the cancellation of the deed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The Supreme Court ruled on the refund of Stamp Duty for an un-executed conveyance deed u/s 47 (c) of the Act and Rules 21, 22A of Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. The appellant diligently pursued legal remedies and was denied refund on grounds of limitation. Evidence is not required with the application for refund u/s 47. The legal principle from THE COMMITTEE-GFIL VERSUS LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. was cited, emphasizing that the State should not rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens. The appellant's case warranted a refund as the expiry of limitation does not bar the right to claim refund. The appellant acted in good faith but was deceived by the Vendor, leading to the cancellation of the deed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4787
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
