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...
The Appellate Tribunal held that an adjudicating authority cannot sustain directions issued in a cryptic order that merely reproduces rival submissions without findings on facts or law. Because the impugned order gave no reasons for allowing the application and did not show judicial application of mind, it was treated as a non-speaking order incapable of legal sustenance. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to hear both parties and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
The Appellate Tribunal held that an adjudicating authority cannot sustain directions issued in a cryptic order that merely reproduces rival submissions without findings on facts or law. Because the impugned order gave no reasons for allowing the application and did not show judicial application of mind, it was treated as a non-speaking order incapable of legal sustenance. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to hear both parties and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
