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...
The dominant issue was whether an assessment framed for FY 2024-2025 pursuant to a show cause notice issued under s.74, instead of the applicable s.74A, was legally sustainable. The Court held that issuance of the notice and consequential assessment under s.74 lacked authority of law where s.74A governed the period; therefore, the assessment order was set aside. To avoid futile remand and limitation complications, the Court directed that the existing notice be treated as a notice under s.74A, required the taxpayer to file a reply on that basis, and ordered adjudication afresh on merits. - HC
The dominant issue was whether an assessment framed for FY 2024-2025 pursuant to a show cause notice issued under s.74, instead of the applicable s.74A, was legally sustainable. The Court held that issuance of the notice and consequential assessment under s.74 lacked authority of law where s.74A governed the period; therefore, the assessment order was set aside. To avoid futile remand and limitation complications, the Court directed that the existing notice be treated as a notice under s.74A, required the taxpayer to file a reply on that basis, and ordered adjudication afresh on merits. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
