Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of the respondent authorities dated 9 August 2025, holding that the detained goods and vehicle must be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with the IGST Act, on the invoice value of the goods. The court found no basis to disturb the petitioner's entitlement to release and directed the respondent authorities to undertake the valuation and release exercise in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks. The writ petition challenging detention was accordingly allowed, and the administrative detention order set aside.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of the respondent authorities dated 9 August 2025, holding that the detained goods and vehicle must be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with the IGST Act, on the invoice value of the goods. The court found no basis to disturb the petitioner's entitlement to release and directed the respondent authorities to undertake the valuation and release exercise in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks. The writ petition challenging detention was accordingly allowed, and the administrative detention order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.