Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
The court granted bail to the accused applicant, considering the following factors: the trial has not yet commenced, the applicant's complicity is yet to be determined, relevant evidence is under the department's control, and there is no indication that the applicant's release would adversely affect the trial. Additionally, the alleged offense carries a maximum punishment of five years' imprisonment, and the applicant has already been in jail for a substantial period. The court opined that the applicant has made a case for bail, subject to furnishing personal bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court and fulfilling imposed conditions. The decision was based on the Supreme Court's precedents, which emphasize considering the gravity of the offense, the object of the relevant Act, and the attending circumstances, rather than categorizing all economic offenses as one group and denying bail.
The court granted bail to the accused applicant, considering the following factors: the trial has not yet commenced, the applicant's complicity is yet to be determined, relevant evidence is under the department's control, and there is no indication that the applicant's release would adversely affect the trial. Additionally, the alleged offense carries a maximum punishment of five years' imprisonment, and the applicant has already been in jail for a substantial period. The court opined that the applicant has made a case for bail, subject to furnishing personal bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court and fulfilling imposed conditions. The decision was based on the Supreme Court's precedents, which emphasize considering the gravity of the offense, the object of the relevant Act, and the attending circumstances, rather than categorizing all economic offenses as one group and denying bail.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.