Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
