Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners who were accused of fraudulently claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) by creating fake forms, forging bills, and showing fictitious transactions through dummy firms. The court held that the allegations prima facie attract offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for availing ITC fraudulently based on false documents and sham transactions, as well as penal provisions under the GST law. While prosecution under two different enactments is permissible as per Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the court noted that the petitioners had already been prosecuted u/s 132 of the CGST Act for the same allegations and had remained in custody for a substantial period. Considering the overlapping nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioners were not absconding, and their previous custody, the court granted them anticipatory bail.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners who were accused of fraudulently claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) by creating fake forms, forging bills, and showing fictitious transactions through dummy firms. The court held that the allegations prima facie attract offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for availing ITC fraudulently based on false documents and sham transactions, as well as penal provisions under the GST law. While prosecution under two different enactments is permissible as per Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the court noted that the petitioners had already been prosecuted u/s 132 of the CGST Act for the same allegations and had remained in custody for a substantial period. Considering the overlapping nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioners were not absconding, and their previous custody, the court granted them anticipatory bail.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
