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 case involves timeliness of appeal filed u/s 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 before Commissioner (Appeals-II) and refund claim. The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted appeal papers to Sevottam section, but factual position on receipt was unclear. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine merits, solely citing delay. Considering the acknowledgment of receipt, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and remanding for detailed examination on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals-II).
The case involves timeliness of appeal filed u/s 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 before Commissioner (Appeals-II) and refund claim. The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted appeal papers to Sevottam section, but factual position on receipt was unclear. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine merits, solely citing delay. Considering the acknowledgment of receipt, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and remanding for detailed examination on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals-II).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
