Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 of 96046 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.