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...
Goods bearing a common pictorial representation and packaging features were held to fall within the amended definition of brand name, but the exemption under Serial Nos. 73 and 74 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, remained available because the petitioner had filed the prescribed affidavit voluntarily foregoing any actionable claim or enforceable right over the brand name and the department had treated the goods as unbranded. The corporate name printed on the package, being required under food and legal metrology laws, could not by itself defeat the exemption. The invocation of the extended period under Section 74 also failed, as the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department; only the normal period under Section 73 could apply. The issue of bunching multiple tax periods in one notice was left open.
Goods bearing a common pictorial representation and packaging features were held to fall within the amended definition of brand name, but the exemption under Serial Nos. 73 and 74 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, remained available because the petitioner had filed the prescribed affidavit voluntarily foregoing any actionable claim or enforceable right over the brand name and the department had treated the goods as unbranded. The corporate name printed on the package, being required under food and legal metrology laws, could not by itself defeat the exemption. The invocation of the extended period under Section 74 also failed, as the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department; only the normal period under Section 73 could apply. The issue of bunching multiple tax periods in one notice was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
