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 u/s. 271(1)(c) - disallowance made u/s. 35(2AB) - The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the term 'particulars' under section 271(1)(c) includes the details of the claim made. In the absence of any incorrect or inaccurate information provided in the return, penalty cannot be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars. - Since the DSIR approval was not available to the assessee at the time of filing the return, any subsequent restriction on the deduction claimed cannot be considered as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - disallowance made u/s. 35(2AB) - The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the term 'particulars' under section 271(1)(c) includes the details of the claim made. In the absence of any incorrect or inaccurate information provided in the return, penalty cannot be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars. - Since the DSIR approval was not available to the assessee at the time of filing the return, any subsequent restriction on the deduction claimed cannot be considered as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.