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...
Invoice-wise comparison found a rebuttable presumption of profiteering following a GST rate reduction on specified snack products; the DGAP report quantified profiteering at Rs. 90,90,310 for 15.11.2017-31.12.2018 and that amount must be deposited equally into the Consumer Welfare Fund. Interest was not imposed because the rule authorising 18% interest became effective on 28.06.2019 and fiscal additions are not to be applied retrospectively (per SC precedent), so no interest is directed. Penalty under the penal provision was not imposed because that provision came into force on 01.01.2020 and cannot be applied retroactively.
Invoice-wise comparison found a rebuttable presumption of profiteering following a GST rate reduction on specified snack products; the DGAP report quantified profiteering at Rs. 90,90,310 for 15.11.2017-31.12.2018 and that amount must be deposited equally into the Consumer Welfare Fund. Interest was not imposed because the rule authorising 18% interest became effective on 28.06.2019 and fiscal additions are not to be applied retrospectively (per SC precedent), so no interest is directed. Penalty under the penal provision was not imposed because that provision came into force on 01.01.2020 and cannot be applied retroactively.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
