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...
Whether the impugned judgment erred by not considering statutory review timelines for refund recovery under Section 56 of the WBGST Act and Rule 94 - court examined the Canon India principle that omission of a statutory provision may be an error apparent on the face of the record but found the trial court did address Section 56 (noting it reinforces the mandatory character of Section 54(7)) and considered all legal provisions and facts; consequently the challenge based on non-consideration fails and the revision is dismissed. - HC
Whether the impugned judgment erred by not considering statutory review timelines for refund recovery under Section 56 of the WBGST Act and Rule 94 - court examined the Canon India principle that omission of a statutory provision may be an error apparent on the face of the record but found the trial court did address Section 56 (noting it reinforces the mandatory character of Section 54(7)) and considered all legal provisions and facts; consequently the challenge based on non-consideration fails and the revision is dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
