Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Admissibility of confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the evidentiary value of prior testimony under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. were central. The court applied the principle that a co-accused's confession is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantive proof, and therefore set that aside to examine other evidence. Prior testimony was inadmissible under the Evidence Act because the complainant failed to establish the witness's unavailability or incapacity, and the complainant did not invoke the alternative business-records route. On that basis, the trial court's rejection of the testimony and acquittal of the remaining accused was upheld.
Admissibility of confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the evidentiary value of prior testimony under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. were central. The court applied the principle that a co-accused's confession is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantive proof, and therefore set that aside to examine other evidence. Prior testimony was inadmissible under the Evidence Act because the complainant failed to establish the witness's unavailability or incapacity, and the complainant did not invoke the alternative business-records route. On that basis, the trial court's rejection of the testimony and acquittal of the remaining accused was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
