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...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
HC upheld the state tax authority's order under Section 74(9) of BGST Act, finding no jurisdictional error in issuing the demand notice. The court determined that the order was legally valid, as it was passed after proper service of show cause notice, and the petitioner failed to contest the substantive facts. The HC rejected arguments about parallel investigations, confirming the authority's right to proceed with tax assessment despite ongoing central agency investigations, thereby maintaining procedural integrity in tax proceedings.
HC upheld the state tax authority's order under Section 74(9) of BGST Act, finding no jurisdictional error in issuing the demand notice. The court determined that the order was legally valid, as it was passed after proper service of show cause notice, and the petitioner failed to contest the substantive facts. The HC rejected arguments about parallel investigations, confirming the authority's right to proceed with tax assessment despite ongoing central agency investigations, thereby maintaining procedural integrity in tax proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.