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...
Delay of about 57 days in filing an appeal under s.107 of the 2017 Act against an order under s.73 was held to be supported by sufficient cause where the delay was attributable to the illness of the appellant's accountant, affirmed by affidavit and not disbelieved by the appellate authority; rejection solely because the accountant was not an authorized signatory ignored the accountant's material role in preparing the appeal and did not establish gross negligence. Applying s.5 of the Limitation Act, the delay was condoned, the appellate rejection was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits. - HC
Delay of about 57 days in filing an appeal under s.107 of the 2017 Act against an order under s.73 was held to be supported by sufficient cause where the delay was attributable to the illness of the appellant's accountant, affirmed by affidavit and not disbelieved by the appellate authority; rejection solely because the accountant was not an authorized signatory ignored the accountant's material role in preparing the appeal and did not establish gross negligence. Applying s.5 of the Limitation Act, the delay was condoned, the appellate rejection was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
