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...
Limitation for penalties arising from alleged cash receipts contrary to section 269ST remains subject to differing views on when the limitation period under section 275(1)(c) begins. Under either approach, penalty proceedings under section 271DA were time-barred because the assessment orders were passed in March 2024, the six-month period ended on 30 September 2024, and the show-cause notice was issued later. The penalty orders and consequential demand notices were therefore unsustainable, and the appeals were dismissed.
Limitation for penalties arising from alleged cash receipts contrary to section 269ST remains subject to differing views on when the limitation period under section 275(1)(c) begins. Under either approach, penalty proceedings under section 271DA were time-barred because the assessment orders were passed in March 2024, the six-month period ended on 30 September 2024, and the show-cause notice was issued later. The penalty orders and consequential demand notices were therefore unsustainable, and the appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.