Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the disallowance arose from a deduction claim under section 80IB(10) on which courts had taken divergent views. The Tribunal treated the issue as debatable, noted that the controversy was pending before the Supreme Court, and applied Reliance Petroproducts to hold that a merely unsustainable claim does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. On that basis, the statutory conditions for penalty were not met and the penalty was deleted.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the disallowance arose from a deduction claim under section 80IB(10) on which courts had taken divergent views. The Tribunal treated the issue as debatable, noted that the controversy was pending before the Supreme Court, and applied Reliance Petroproducts to hold that a merely unsustainable claim does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. On that basis, the statutory conditions for penalty were not met and the penalty was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.