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 core issue is validity of service and jurisdiction in issuance of a Section 73 notice where no personal hearing occurred and the taxpayer failed to reply; the court held that portal upload alone, without considered attempts under Section 169(1) (eg. RPAD), may be ineffective and amounts to mere formality, so service was deficient - consequence: the impugned assessment order was without jurisdiction and set aside. The court directed that the assessment order be treated as a notice under Section 74A and the taxpayer afforded an opportunity to file a reply, thereby restoring procedural fairness. - HC
The core issue is validity of service and jurisdiction in issuance of a Section 73 notice where no personal hearing occurred and the taxpayer failed to reply; the court held that portal upload alone, without considered attempts under Section 169(1) (eg. RPAD), may be ineffective and amounts to mere formality, so service was deficient - consequence: the impugned assessment order was without jurisdiction and set aside. The court directed that the assessment order be treated as a notice under Section 74A and the taxpayer afforded an opportunity to file a reply, thereby restoring procedural fairness. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
