Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.