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...
A composite assessment order covering more than one financial year was challenged as violating Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act, 2017. Applying binding precedent, it was held that a single show-cause notice or composite assessment order cannot validly relate to more than one tax period-either more than one month where proceedings are initiated before the due date for filing the annual return, or more than one year where the due date has been reached. Consequently, the impugned assessment order and the appellate order affirming it were set aside, with liberty to the department to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year. - HC
A composite assessment order covering more than one financial year was challenged as violating Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act, 2017. Applying binding precedent, it was held that a single show-cause notice or composite assessment order cannot validly relate to more than one tax period-either more than one month where proceedings are initiated before the due date for filing the annual return, or more than one year where the due date has been reached. Consequently, the impugned assessment order and the appellate order affirming it were set aside, with liberty to the department to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
