Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Where an attached residential property remained in the applicant's self-occupation, the Tribunal applied Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary to hold that taking physical possession before confiscation is exceptional, not routine. As no exceptional circumstance was shown and the Directorate did not establish any basis to displace the occupant, the applicant could retain possession and no notional rent could be demanded for the self-occupied property. The Tribunal also noted that the pending modification application had not been adjudicated earlier. The rights of mortgagee banks and secured creditors to proceed in accordance with law were left unaffected.
Where an attached residential property remained in the applicant's self-occupation, the Tribunal applied Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary to hold that taking physical possession before confiscation is exceptional, not routine. As no exceptional circumstance was shown and the Directorate did not establish any basis to displace the occupant, the applicant could retain possession and no notional rent could be demanded for the self-occupied property. The Tribunal also noted that the pending modification application had not been adjudicated earlier. The rights of mortgagee banks and secured creditors to proceed in accordance with law were left unaffected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.