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 court addressed whether parallel proceedings under Sections 73/74 and Section 122 (penalty) create impermissible overlap and whether the show-cause notice could proceed pending resolution of a state appeal; it declined to decide the overlap on merits but ordered the state Appellate Authority to conclude the pending appeal within a limited period - outcome: appeal to be disposed within three weeks and the Central Authorities may proceed with the show-cause notice only after that conclusion. The petitioner may thereafter file a reply raising the overlap and reliance on the CBIC circular; remedies preserved. - HC
The court addressed whether parallel proceedings under Sections 73/74 and Section 122 (penalty) create impermissible overlap and whether the show-cause notice could proceed pending resolution of a state appeal; it declined to decide the overlap on merits but ordered the state Appellate Authority to conclude the pending appeal within a limited period - outcome: appeal to be disposed within three weeks and the Central Authorities may proceed with the show-cause notice only after that conclusion. The petitioner may thereafter file a reply raising the overlap and reliance on the CBIC circular; remedies preserved. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
