Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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...
Rule 117(4)(b)(iii) of the CGST Rules was challenged as ultra vires Section 140(3) of the CGST Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner has the right to avail transitional credit legally due, and the authorities should permit rectification of TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by making necessary software changes. The respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to file rectified TRAN-1 with correct details and TRAN-2 within eight weeks to avail transitional credit. The impugned show-cause notice was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Rule 117(4)(b)(iii) of the CGST Rules was challenged as ultra vires Section 140(3) of the CGST Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner has the right to avail transitional credit legally due, and the authorities should permit rectification of TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by making necessary software changes. The respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to file rectified TRAN-1 with correct details and TRAN-2 within eight weeks to avail transitional credit. The impugned show-cause notice was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.