Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the seizure and continued retention of 7,738.80 gms of gold jewellery were ultra vires and contrary to law. It found the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 unreliable and inconsistent with contemporaneous records, which clearly showed that the jewellery had already been taken into custody on 12.05.2024 and valued on 17.05.2024. HC rejected the revenue's affidavit explanation as contrary to the record and accepted the petitioners' evidence that the jewellery constituted stock-in-trade of Petitioner No. 1. Consequently, HC quashed the impugned order and the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 and directed the respondents to release the seized gold jewellery to Petitioner No. 1 within two weeks of uploading of the order.
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the seizure and continued retention of 7,738.80 gms of gold jewellery were ultra vires and contrary to law. It found the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 unreliable and inconsistent with contemporaneous records, which clearly showed that the jewellery had already been taken into custody on 12.05.2024 and valued on 17.05.2024. HC rejected the revenue's affidavit explanation as contrary to the record and accepted the petitioners' evidence that the jewellery constituted stock-in-trade of Petitioner No. 1. Consequently, HC quashed the impugned order and the Panchanama dated 01.06.2024 and directed the respondents to release the seized gold jewellery to Petitioner No. 1 within two weeks of uploading of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.