Stamp valuation increases after registration-fee payment led to deletion of property-purchase addition within tolerance and without valuation referral...
Capital Asset Conversion Requires Proven Business Stock Treatment; Paper Consideration in Spousal Flat Transfers Does Not Create Taxable Business Inco...
Human-probability test defeats political donation deduction where banking records mask accommodation-entry fund layering and evidence shows non-genuin...
Commercial property status protects capital-gains exemption when residential-house ownership limits are tested, while agricultural-land character gove...
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) is satisfied because the principal cause of action-the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank account-arose within the Court's territorial limits, permitting a writ petition challenging that freeze. The court applied the principle that a legal right infringed within territorial limits supports jurisdiction and distinguished prior authority where only a minor part of cause of action arose locally. The order holds that debit-freezing directed by police on January 6, 2025, lacked requisite magistrate-sanctioned seizure or attachment and is therefore quashed; the bank must restore account operation.
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) is satisfied because the principal cause of action-the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank account-arose within the Court's territorial limits, permitting a writ petition challenging that freeze. The court applied the principle that a legal right infringed within territorial limits supports jurisdiction and distinguished prior authority where only a minor part of cause of action arose locally. The order holds that debit-freezing directed by police on January 6, 2025, lacked requisite magistrate-sanctioned seizure or attachment and is therefore quashed; the bank must restore account operation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
