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...
Levy of penalty - In the light of section 73(4) of Finance Act, 1994, which is the sole ground for denying recourse to section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that the appellant herein has discharged tax liability in the manner contemplated by section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, upon intimation by the jurisdictional central excise officers. Consequently, in accordance with Explanation 2 therein, the assessee is not liable to any penalty under Finance Act, 1944. - AT
Levy of penalty - In the light of section 73(4) of Finance Act, 1994, which is the sole ground for denying recourse to section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that the appellant herein has discharged tax liability in the manner contemplated by section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, upon intimation by the jurisdictional central excise officers. Consequently, in accordance with Explanation 2 therein, the assessee is not liable to any penalty under Finance Act, 1944. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
