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 Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the refund claim as time barred, affirming that the limitation period commenced from the "date of service" of the finalization of provisional assessment under section 27(1B)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court concurred with the High Court's finding that the tribunal appropriately considered the documentation notifying the assessee of the finalization. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the SC found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, finalizing the rejection of the refund claim on limitation grounds.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the refund claim as time barred, affirming that the limitation period commenced from the "date of service" of the finalization of provisional assessment under section 27(1B)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court concurred with the High Court's finding that the tribunal appropriately considered the documentation notifying the assessee of the finalization. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the SC found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, finalizing the rejection of the refund claim on limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
