Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Separate corporate personality was upheld for the two foreign companies, and section 69A could not be applied because the Revenue failed to show by cogent evidence that their bank funds belonged beneficially to the assessee. Mere earlier shareholding, directorship, or authority to operate accounts was held insufficient to lift the corporate veil, especially when no material showed flow of funds from India to the companies or receipt by the assessee from those accounts. The assessee's explanation that the transactions related to his non-resident son and son-in-law was supported by confirmations, and his prior resignation and share transfer further weakened the ownership allegation. The quantum additions were deleted, and the related penalty under section 271(1)(c) also fell.
Separate corporate personality was upheld for the two foreign companies, and section 69A could not be applied because the Revenue failed to show by cogent evidence that their bank funds belonged beneficially to the assessee. Mere earlier shareholding, directorship, or authority to operate accounts was held insufficient to lift the corporate veil, especially when no material showed flow of funds from India to the companies or receipt by the assessee from those accounts. The assessee's explanation that the transactions related to his non-resident son and son-in-law was supported by confirmations, and his prior resignation and share transfer further weakened the ownership allegation. The quantum additions were deleted, and the related penalty under section 271(1)(c) also fell.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
