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...
The assessee made an undisclosed income declaration under Income Declaration Scheme-2016 for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2014-15, clubbing the income for 2012-13. The Principal Commissioner specified the amounts to be paid as tax, surcharge, and penalty in three installments. The assessee defaulted on the third installment payment due by 30.09.2017. However, a notification dated 13.02.2019 extended the payment date to 31.01.2020, along with 1% monthly interest, retrospectively effective from 01.06.2016. The assessee paid the balance tax with interest. The ITAT held that the assessee validly deposited the tax, surcharge, interest, and penalty under IDS-2016 and the 13.12.2019 notification, rectifying the default retrospectively. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate this retrospective rectification. Therefore, the issue was determined in favor of the assessee against the revenue.
The assessee made an undisclosed income declaration under Income Declaration Scheme-2016 for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2014-15, clubbing the income for 2012-13. The Principal Commissioner specified the amounts to be paid as tax, surcharge, and penalty in three installments. The assessee defaulted on the third installment payment due by 30.09.2017. However, a notification dated 13.02.2019 extended the payment date to 31.01.2020, along with 1% monthly interest, retrospectively effective from 01.06.2016. The assessee paid the balance tax with interest. The ITAT held that the assessee validly deposited the tax, surcharge, interest, and penalty under IDS-2016 and the 13.12.2019 notification, rectifying the default retrospectively. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate this retrospective rectification. Therefore, the issue was determined in favor of the assessee against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
