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...
HC rejected the rectification application, finding no procedural fault by the Respondent-Department. The Court held that the petitioner failed to provide substantive reasoning in the application. While granting time until 10th July, 2025 to file an appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act, the Court left open the issue of notification validity, subject to pending Supreme Court and High Court decisions in related matters. The petitioner was advised to pursue remedies through the appellate authority, with the final determination contingent on ongoing judicial proceedings.
HC rejected the rectification application, finding no procedural fault by the Respondent-Department. The Court held that the petitioner failed to provide substantive reasoning in the application. While granting time until 10th July, 2025 to file an appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act, the Court left open the issue of notification validity, subject to pending Supreme Court and High Court decisions in related matters. The petitioner was advised to pursue remedies through the appellate authority, with the final determination contingent on ongoing judicial proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
