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 HC dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's order directing refund of the Rs.1,00,000 deposited under s.143A of the N.I. Act to the accused/appellant. The appellate court had set aside the conviction and compensation order, leaving no subsisting order against the accused; consequently the deposited amount cannot be retained or adjusted as interim compensation in a fresh complaint filed under s.142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act absent any interlocutory order granting such relief. The HC found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's reasoning and declined to interfere, affirming the accused's right to refund and dismissing the petition.
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's order directing refund of the Rs.1,00,000 deposited under s.143A of the N.I. Act to the accused/appellant. The appellate court had set aside the conviction and compensation order, leaving no subsisting order against the accused; consequently the deposited amount cannot be retained or adjusted as interim compensation in a fresh complaint filed under s.142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act absent any interlocutory order granting such relief. The HC found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's reasoning and declined to interfere, affirming the accused's right to refund and dismissing the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
