Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The Tribunal held that the objection of the assessee regarding low tax effect was not sustainable. The addition made u/s 68 for bogus LTCG and unexplained cash credits involved penny stocks. The Tribunal cannot determine if a share is a penny stock, which is decided by BSE or investigation agencies. The transaction involved shares identified as penny stocks by the Investigation Directorate. The Tribunal found no merit in the objections raised by the assessee and dismissed the request to recall the order. The power u/s 254(2) cannot be used to review the order on its merits. The assessee's application is dismissed, citing judicial discipline and referring to a decision by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the objection of the assessee regarding low tax effect was not sustainable. The addition made u/s 68 for bogus LTCG and unexplained cash credits involved penny stocks. The Tribunal cannot determine if a share is a penny stock, which is decided by BSE or investigation agencies. The transaction involved shares identified as penny stocks by the Investigation Directorate. The Tribunal found no merit in the objections raised by the assessee and dismissed the request to recall the order. The power u/s 254(2) cannot be used to review the order on its merits. The assessee's application is dismissed, citing judicial discipline and referring to a decision by the Supreme Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.