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...
Refund was rejected as time-barred under s.54(3) CGST Act by treating a later revised application (filed after a deficiency memo) as the relevant date for limitation. The Court held that limitation must be computed from the date of the initial refund application, and a subsequent revised filing pursuant to a deficiency memo cannot shift the limitation start point; the contrary approach was erroneous and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the refund claim on merits in accordance with law, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Refund was rejected as time-barred under s.54(3) CGST Act by treating a later revised application (filed after a deficiency memo) as the relevant date for limitation. The Court held that limitation must be computed from the date of the initial refund application, and a subsequent revised filing pursuant to a deficiency memo cannot shift the limitation start point; the contrary approach was erroneous and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the refund claim on merits in accordance with law, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
