Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
VCES benefit denied because the declarant failed to pay the mandatory 50% pre deposit by the specified cut off date and filed a declaration barred by the second proviso to Section 106(1) for a subsequent period where an order of determination already existed; the designated authority validly rejected the declaration after due process. The tribunal held that the scheme's procedural timetable and stipulations are inviolable, that courts cannot extend amnesty timelines, and that the designated authority possesses inherent and ancillary powers to scrutinise and refuse nonconforming declarations. The appellate challenge was dismissed for lack of merit.
VCES benefit denied because the declarant failed to pay the mandatory 50% pre deposit by the specified cut off date and filed a declaration barred by the second proviso to Section 106(1) for a subsequent period where an order of determination already existed; the designated authority validly rejected the declaration after due process. The tribunal held that the scheme's procedural timetable and stipulations are inviolable, that courts cannot extend amnesty timelines, and that the designated authority possesses inherent and ancillary powers to scrutinise and refuse nonconforming declarations. The appellate challenge was dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
