Allocation of registration charges: contractual clause overriding statutory presumption allowed as deduction against capital gain after unrebutted doc...
Expenditure tied to investments yielding exempt income restricted to attributable costs; broader disallowance disallowed and adjustments to WDV and mi...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties an...
Classification of printed technical documents: specific Chapter 49.01 entry prevails, enabling claimed customs exemptions for imported manuals and rep...
Section 7 insolvency proceedings were held to be within limitation because the corporate debtor's liability was repeatedly acknowledged in balance sheets, one-time settlement proposals and an email communication, attracting Section 18 of the Limitation Act and extending time. The Tribunal also applied the principle that a recovery certificate can constitute a fresh cause of action for initiating insolvency proceedings, so the application could not be treated as time-barred. On substitution, it ruled that the deceased appellant's legal heir could continue the pending appeal, since substitution had already been permitted and the heir merely stepped into the appellant's shoes to preserve the existing proceedings. The limitation objection and the maintainability challenge were rejected.
Section 7 insolvency proceedings were held to be within limitation because the corporate debtor's liability was repeatedly acknowledged in balance sheets, one-time settlement proposals and an email communication, attracting Section 18 of the Limitation Act and extending time. The Tribunal also applied the principle that a recovery certificate can constitute a fresh cause of action for initiating insolvency proceedings, so the application could not be treated as time-barred. On substitution, it ruled that the deceased appellant's legal heir could continue the pending appeal, since substitution had already been permitted and the heir merely stepped into the appellant's shoes to preserve the existing proceedings. The limitation objection and the maintainability challenge were rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.