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 petitioner's refund claim was within the limitation period prescribed u/s 53(3) of the CGST Act, as the period from March 2020 to February 2022 was excluded from the limitation period based on the GST Council's recommendations, which the respondent did not dispute. The impugned order was set aside, and the HC allowed the present petition, holding that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the GST Council's recommendations.
The petitioner's refund claim was within the limitation period prescribed u/s 53(3) of the CGST Act, as the period from March 2020 to February 2022 was excluded from the limitation period based on the GST Council's recommendations, which the respondent did not dispute. The impugned order was set aside, and the HC allowed the present petition, holding that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the GST Council's recommendations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
