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...
The HC held that the arrest of the Applicant for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i), and 132(2) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act was illegal due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. The DGGI failed to prove that the Applicant was informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of detention, as mandated. Consequently, the Applicant's custodial detention was declared unlawful. The court granted regular bail upon the Applicant executing a P.R. bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Pune. The bail application was accordingly allowed.
The HC held that the arrest of the Applicant for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i), and 132(2) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act was illegal due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. The DGGI failed to prove that the Applicant was informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of detention, as mandated. Consequently, the Applicant's custodial detention was declared unlawful. The court granted regular bail upon the Applicant executing a P.R. bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Pune. The bail application was accordingly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.