Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Interim judicial restraint on tax deduction prevents default, while supporting reasonable cause and penalty deletion for foreign-leg LFC reimbursement...
Judicial review of the quantum of a FERA penalty permits interference on proportionality grounds only where the sanction is grossly excessive, unduly harsh, or so disproportionate that it shocks the court's conscience. A Tribunal cannot reduce a penalty without demonstrating and giving reasons that this high threshold is met; its reduction was therefore unsustainable. FERA penalty adjudication follows proof of breach of a statutory civil obligation, without requiring mens rea. Absence of criminal intent or monetary gain does not legally justify a reduced penalty. The appellate outcome restored the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside the Tribunal's reduction.
Judicial review of the quantum of a FERA penalty permits interference on proportionality grounds only where the sanction is grossly excessive, unduly harsh, or so disproportionate that it shocks the court's conscience. A Tribunal cannot reduce a penalty without demonstrating and giving reasons that this high threshold is met; its reduction was therefore unsustainable. FERA penalty adjudication follows proof of breach of a statutory civil obligation, without requiring mens rea. Absence of criminal intent or monetary gain does not legally justify a reduced penalty. The appellate outcome restored the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside the Tribunal's reduction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
