Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Levy of penalty @200% - e-way bill which was generated by the appellant had expired and at the time when the vehicle was intercepted four days had lapsed - The High Court acknowledged that penalties should not be imposed without considering mens rea. While the statute allows for a penalty of 200%, it does not absolve authorities from considering circumstances and intentions. Despite the expiration of the e-way bill, the Court found that the appellant's failure to extend the validity was a crucial factor. However, it noted that the penalty was calculated on a higher value than the invoice, indicating arbitrariness on the part of the authorities. Ultimately, the Court partially allowed the appeal, imposing a reduced penalty but refrained from completely exonerating the appellant.
Levy of penalty @200% - e-way bill which was generated by the appellant had expired and at the time when the vehicle was intercepted four days had lapsed - The High Court acknowledged that penalties should not be imposed without considering mens rea. While the statute allows for a penalty of 200%, it does not absolve authorities from considering circumstances and intentions. Despite the expiration of the e-way bill, the Court found that the appellant's failure to extend the validity was a crucial factor. However, it noted that the penalty was calculated on a higher value than the invoice, indicating arbitrariness on the part of the authorities. Ultimately, the Court partially allowed the appeal, imposing a reduced penalty but refrained from completely exonerating the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
