Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves property forfeiture under SAFEMA, which was also part of TADA proceedings. The Appellant's challenge based on different statutes was rejected. The validity of the notice u/s 6 of SAFEMA does not require establishing a nexus with the detainee's income. The argument of violating natural justice principles due to quick decision-making was dismissed. The Appellant's acquisition of Flat No. 604 was deemed legitimate, nullifying the forfeiture. The Appellant, as a tenant, should not be affected by property forfeiture. Lack of evidence led to rejection of challenges regarding other properties and income sources. The Appellant's claims of property acquisition lacked substantiation, leading to the dismissal of challenges against forfeiture.
The case involves property forfeiture under SAFEMA, which was also part of TADA proceedings. The Appellant's challenge based on different statutes was rejected. The validity of the notice u/s 6 of SAFEMA does not require establishing a nexus with the detainee's income. The argument of violating natural justice principles due to quick decision-making was dismissed. The Appellant's acquisition of Flat No. 604 was deemed legitimate, nullifying the forfeiture. The Appellant, as a tenant, should not be affected by property forfeiture. Lack of evidence led to rejection of challenges regarding other properties and income sources. The Appellant's claims of property acquisition lacked substantiation, leading to the dismissal of challenges against forfeiture.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
