Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
A typographical discrepancy between e-way bill particulars and tax invoices, where goods otherwise correspond with the e-way bill and transport documents, is treated as a human error when it provides no benefit and does not indicate tax avoidance. The notes state that such a minor inadvertent mistake, without intent to deceive the Revenue or financial implications, should attract only the minor penalty under clause 5 of the circular dated 14 September 2018, rather than detention and penalty action under Section 129. The Section 129 penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable minor penalty.
A typographical discrepancy between e-way bill particulars and tax invoices, where goods otherwise correspond with the e-way bill and transport documents, is treated as a human error when it provides no benefit and does not indicate tax avoidance. The notes state that such a minor inadvertent mistake, without intent to deceive the Revenue or financial implications, should attract only the minor penalty under clause 5 of the circular dated 14 September 2018, rather than detention and penalty action under Section 129. The Section 129 penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable minor penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.