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 ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Penalty under section 271D cannot survive once the reassessment orders and the recorded satisfaction forming its basis are quashed, because the alleged section 269SS violation loses its substratum. The Tribunal also held that levy of penalty requires reliable independent evidence of actual acceptance of cash loans or deposits; third-party statements and alleged coded entries, without corroboration in the assessee's books or other incriminating material, were insufficient. As the related additions had already been deleted and no separate proof of cash borrowing was established, the penalties for both assessment years were held unsustainable and directed to be deleted.
Penalty under section 271D cannot survive once the reassessment orders and the recorded satisfaction forming its basis are quashed, because the alleged section 269SS violation loses its substratum. The Tribunal also held that levy of penalty requires reliable independent evidence of actual acceptance of cash loans or deposits; third-party statements and alleged coded entries, without corroboration in the assessee's books or other incriminating material, were insufficient. As the related additions had already been deleted and no separate proof of cash borrowing was established, the penalties for both assessment years were held unsustainable and directed to be deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.