Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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...
Revenue records prevailed over guideline-value entries in determining whether the land was agricultural, and clear evidence of agricultural classification and activity required exclusion of the land from the definition of capital asset for capital gains tax. The HC held that the Tribunal and first appellate authority misread the material, ignored revenue records, sale deeds, photographs and agricultural income evidence, and wrongly treated the land as non-agricultural; that finding was reversed in favour of the assessee. The Court also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to revisit the assessments and entertain appeals from both sides, so its competence was upheld even though its merits reasoning was disapproved.
Revenue records prevailed over guideline-value entries in determining whether the land was agricultural, and clear evidence of agricultural classification and activity required exclusion of the land from the definition of capital asset for capital gains tax. The HC held that the Tribunal and first appellate authority misread the material, ignored revenue records, sale deeds, photographs and agricultural income evidence, and wrongly treated the land as non-agricultural; that finding was reversed in favour of the assessee. The Court also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to revisit the assessments and entertain appeals from both sides, so its competence was upheld even though its merits reasoning was disapproved.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
