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 dealt with a case involving the rejection of a refund claim due to discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B return. The Court found that no reasons were given for determining that the claim did not meet the requirements of u/s 77. Additionally, the Court noted that although it was concluded that there was no excess payment, the petitioner's detailed response on this issue was not considered, and proper reasons were not provided for this conclusion. As a result, the Court disposed of the petition by remanding the matter for further consideration.
The High Court dealt with a case involving the rejection of a refund claim due to discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B return. The Court found that no reasons were given for determining that the claim did not meet the requirements of u/s 77. Additionally, the Court noted that although it was concluded that there was no excess payment, the petitioner's detailed response on this issue was not considered, and proper reasons were not provided for this conclusion. As a result, the Court disposed of the petition by remanding the matter for further consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
