Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty proceedings under ss. 271D and 271E were held unsustainable where the Revenue relied only on entries in seized papers belonging to third parties, without proving that the assessee actually accepted or repaid cash loans. The Tribunal held that such proceedings are penal in nature and independent of assessment proceedings, so the initial burden remained on the Revenue. That burden was not discharged because the documents were not shown to be the assessee's own records, no evidence proved utilisation or repayment, and the assessee's request for copies and cross-examination was denied. The penalties were deleted.
Penalty proceedings under ss. 271D and 271E were held unsustainable where the Revenue relied only on entries in seized papers belonging to third parties, without proving that the assessee actually accepted or repaid cash loans. The Tribunal held that such proceedings are penal in nature and independent of assessment proceedings, so the initial burden remained on the Revenue. That burden was not discharged because the documents were not shown to be the assessee's own records, no evidence proved utilisation or repayment, and the assessee's request for copies and cross-examination was denied. The penalties were deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.