Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Pre-commencement R&D deduction denied where business had not commenced; deeming benefit requires tangible start of manufacture or commercial exploitat...
A second provisional attachment issued after the earlier order had expired was unsustainable where it rested on the same facts and no change in circumstances was shown. The Court held that Section 83(2) does not permit a fresh attachment on substantially identical grounds after the statutory one-year period, as this would defeat the built-in safeguard against misuse. It also held that provisional attachment is only a pre-emptive protective measure and cannot be used as a post-assessment recovery device once assessment has culminated in a final order. The petition was allowed and the attachment was quashed.
A second provisional attachment issued after the earlier order had expired was unsustainable where it rested on the same facts and no change in circumstances was shown. The Court held that Section 83(2) does not permit a fresh attachment on substantially identical grounds after the statutory one-year period, as this would defeat the built-in safeguard against misuse. It also held that provisional attachment is only a pre-emptive protective measure and cannot be used as a post-assessment recovery device once assessment has culminated in a final order. The petition was allowed and the attachment was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
