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...
Challenge concerns taxability of ocean freight under the IGST reverse charge mechanism and rejection of a rectification application. The court found the Proper Officer erred in treating a Supreme Court decision as prospective where constitutional precedent requires judgments to operate retrospectively unless expressly prospective, and concluded the SC ruling that Notification 10/2017 is clarificatory (not altering the taxable person under reverse charge) governs earlier import transactions; therefore the impugned confirmation of IGST demand and the March 25, 2025 rejection of rectification could not be sustained and the rectification application was allowed.
Challenge concerns taxability of ocean freight under the IGST reverse charge mechanism and rejection of a rectification application. The court found the Proper Officer erred in treating a Supreme Court decision as prospective where constitutional precedent requires judgments to operate retrospectively unless expressly prospective, and concluded the SC ruling that Notification 10/2017 is clarificatory (not altering the taxable person under reverse charge) governs earlier import transactions; therefore the impugned confirmation of IGST demand and the March 25, 2025 rejection of rectification could not be sustained and the rectification application was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.