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 271(1)(c) could not survive once the related interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) had already been deleted in the quantum appeal, because the basis for the penalty no longer existed. On the subsidy issue, the Tribunal treated the capital-versus-revenue characterisation of the grant as a debatable question and held that such a disputed classification did not establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore deleted in full.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive once the related interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) had already been deleted in the quantum appeal, because the basis for the penalty no longer existed. On the subsidy issue, the Tribunal treated the capital-versus-revenue characterisation of the grant as a debatable question and held that such a disputed classification did not establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore deleted in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
