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...
HC held that initiation of proceedings under s.130 of the GST Act based solely on alleged excess stock observed during a survey, without physical counting, was unsustainable. The court reiterated that registered persons must maintain accounts under s.35 and that s.35(6) permits determination of tax on unaccounted goods with applicability of ss.73/74 mutatis mutandis, but proceedings under s.130 are not the appropriate mechanism where excess stock is merely noted on survey. In consequence, the impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed, with directions accordingly, and no order for proceedings under s.130 to be sustained in the present facts.
HC held that initiation of proceedings under s.130 of the GST Act based solely on alleged excess stock observed during a survey, without physical counting, was unsustainable. The court reiterated that registered persons must maintain accounts under s.35 and that s.35(6) permits determination of tax on unaccounted goods with applicability of ss.73/74 mutatis mutandis, but proceedings under s.130 are not the appropriate mechanism where excess stock is merely noted on survey. In consequence, the impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed, with directions accordingly, and no order for proceedings under s.130 to be sustained in the present facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
