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...
The petitioner had wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) which was reversed in the GSTR-3B filed for February 2020. Despite admitting the reversal, the second respondent included the demand for the wrongly availed ITC in the DRC-07 notice. The High Court held that the reason provided by the second respondent for including the demand was unacceptable. The demand under item No.3 of the impugned DRC-07 notice was set aside as erroneous since the first respondent had already ordered the reversal to be treated as payment u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. For other claims, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the concerned Authority seeking amnesty.
The petitioner had wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) which was reversed in the GSTR-3B filed for February 2020. Despite admitting the reversal, the second respondent included the demand for the wrongly availed ITC in the DRC-07 notice. The High Court held that the reason provided by the second respondent for including the demand was unacceptable. The demand under item No.3 of the impugned DRC-07 notice was set aside as erroneous since the first respondent had already ordered the reversal to be treated as payment u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. For other claims, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the concerned Authority seeking amnesty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
