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 considered a challenge to letters issued by the Deputy Commissioner under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme due to the Petitioner's failure to make payment as per the SVLDRS-3 form. The Court found that the Petitioner's inability to make payment was due to a technical glitch, which was raised with the Respondents. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay, and as no fault was attributed to them, they should not be denied the SVLDRS benefit. The Court referenced a previous decision where a similar situation allowed the declarant to make payment and benefit from the SVLDR scheme. The application was disposed of in favor of the Petitioner.
The High Court considered a challenge to letters issued by the Deputy Commissioner under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme due to the Petitioner's failure to make payment as per the SVLDRS-3 form. The Court found that the Petitioner's inability to make payment was due to a technical glitch, which was raised with the Respondents. The Petitioner expressed willingness to pay, and as no fault was attributed to them, they should not be denied the SVLDRS benefit. The Court referenced a previous decision where a similar situation allowed the declarant to make payment and benefit from the SVLDR scheme. The application was disposed of in favor of the Petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
