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...
HC dismissed writ appeal challenging refund application under Section 142(3) for unutilized CENVAT credit. The court upheld the Single Judge's ruling, finding the refund claim unsustainable based on Supreme Court precedent and existing statutory provisions. The appellant's arguments regarding refund under Section 55 of CGST Act were rejected as futile. The court determined no interference was warranted with the original judgment, thereby conclusively dismissing the appeal and maintaining the lower court's decision against the refund claim.
HC dismissed writ appeal challenging refund application under Section 142(3) for unutilized CENVAT credit. The court upheld the Single Judge's ruling, finding the refund claim unsustainable based on Supreme Court precedent and existing statutory provisions. The appellant's arguments regarding refund under Section 55 of CGST Act were rejected as futile. The court determined no interference was warranted with the original judgment, thereby conclusively dismissing the appeal and maintaining the lower court's decision against the refund claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.