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...
Eligibility of the petitioner to make a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2015 (SVLDRS) and the appropriation of the amount quantified in the audit report from the eligible refund claimed by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was ineligible to make a declaration under SVLDRS as the audit was initiated before 30.06.2019, and the amount of duty involved was not quantified on or before that date, as per Section 125(1)(e) of the Scheme. Regarding the appropriation of the refund, the court ruled that the respondent authority was not justified in adjusting the outstanding dues quantified in the audit report from the refund claim without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for hearing, as required u/s 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner regarding the refund claim.
Eligibility of the petitioner to make a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2015 (SVLDRS) and the appropriation of the amount quantified in the audit report from the eligible refund claimed by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was ineligible to make a declaration under SVLDRS as the audit was initiated before 30.06.2019, and the amount of duty involved was not quantified on or before that date, as per Section 125(1)(e) of the Scheme. Regarding the appropriation of the refund, the court ruled that the respondent authority was not justified in adjusting the outstanding dues quantified in the audit report from the refund claim without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for hearing, as required u/s 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner regarding the refund claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
