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...
Challenge to invocation of the extended period under s.74 of the TNGST Act was considered in light of an unclear show-cause notice and the alleged mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that proper adjudication on limitation and tax liability required the taxpayer to furnish a comprehensive reply on merits along with legal submissions, which had not been effectively done, warranting a fresh determination. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the proper officer for reconsideration, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax from the taxpayer's electronic cash ledger within 30 days. - HC
Challenge to invocation of the extended period under s.74 of the TNGST Act was considered in light of an unclear show-cause notice and the alleged mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that proper adjudication on limitation and tax liability required the taxpayer to furnish a comprehensive reply on merits along with legal submissions, which had not been effectively done, warranting a fresh determination. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the proper officer for reconsideration, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax from the taxpayer's electronic cash ledger within 30 days. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
