Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Claim of second sale exemption and the imposition of penalty u/s 12(5)(iii). The High Court held that when the burden was on the dealer to prove the factum of second sale, the respondent had failed to discharge this burden by proving the actual first sale, which was a prerequisite for claiming the exemption. The Tribunal had erroneously shifted the burden from the dealer to the revenue. Relying on previous decisions, the High Court reiterated that the burden of proving an earlier taxable sale was on the assessee. Regarding the penalty u/s 12(5)(iii), the Court held that since the respondent had wilfully suppressed taxable turnover and failed to file returns, the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing the penalty, and the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was untenable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the assessment order confirmed by the appellate authority.
Claim of second sale exemption and the imposition of penalty u/s 12(5)(iii). The High Court held that when the burden was on the dealer to prove the factum of second sale, the respondent had failed to discharge this burden by proving the actual first sale, which was a prerequisite for claiming the exemption. The Tribunal had erroneously shifted the burden from the dealer to the revenue. Relying on previous decisions, the High Court reiterated that the burden of proving an earlier taxable sale was on the assessee. Regarding the penalty u/s 12(5)(iii), the Court held that since the respondent had wilfully suppressed taxable turnover and failed to file returns, the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing the penalty, and the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was untenable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the assessment order confirmed by the appellate authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
