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...
A jurisdictional objection based on the statutory bar against parallel proceedings was rejected as premature because no material was produced to show initiation of adjudicatory proceedings, identity of subject matter, tax period, or cause of action; a writ court could not record even a prima facie finding without such foundational facts. The challenge to provisional attachment for want of a pre-decisional hearing also failed, as Section 83 was treated as not requiring prior notice and the statutory scheme was held to provide a complete post-decisional remedy under Rule 159(5). The petitioner's custody at the time of attachment did not, by itself, invalidate the action, and writ interference was declined.
A jurisdictional objection based on the statutory bar against parallel proceedings was rejected as premature because no material was produced to show initiation of adjudicatory proceedings, identity of subject matter, tax period, or cause of action; a writ court could not record even a prima facie finding without such foundational facts. The challenge to provisional attachment for want of a pre-decisional hearing also failed, as Section 83 was treated as not requiring prior notice and the statutory scheme was held to provide a complete post-decisional remedy under Rule 159(5). The petitioner's custody at the time of attachment did not, by itself, invalidate the action, and writ interference was declined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
