Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - Income disclosed only after the search and seizure operation - The High Court emphasized that Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) deems concealed income even if disclosed post-search, and upheld the assessing officer’s initiation of penalty proceedings based on detailed findings of concealed income in the assessment orders. The Court referenced key Supreme Court judgments, asserting that the satisfaction for penalty can be inferred from the assessment order and need not be explicitly stated in the notice if the order details the concealment. It also rejected the respondent’s defense of voluntary disclosure, noting it was made only after irrefutable evidence of concealment emerged during the search. It set aside the ITAT’s order, reinstated the penalties, and remanded the matter to the ITAT for adjudication on merits.
Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - Income disclosed only after the search and seizure operation - The High Court emphasized that Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) deems concealed income even if disclosed post-search, and upheld the assessing officer’s initiation of penalty proceedings based on detailed findings of concealed income in the assessment orders. The Court referenced key Supreme Court judgments, asserting that the satisfaction for penalty can be inferred from the assessment order and need not be explicitly stated in the notice if the order details the concealment. It also rejected the respondent’s defense of voluntary disclosure, noting it was made only after irrefutable evidence of concealment emerged during the search. It set aside the ITAT’s order, reinstated the penalties, and remanded the matter to the ITAT for adjudication on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
