Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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...
Defective notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) for levying penalty. The key points are: The phrases "conceal" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars" in Section 271(1)(c) carry distinct meanings. Where penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c), the specific ground must be clearly spelled out to provide the assessee a proper opportunity for defense. Penalty proceedings being penal in nature, the charge must be unambiguous. The revenue cannot club both grounds of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal rightly held that the penalty levy u/s 271(1)(c) in the assessee's case was invalid due to the defective notice.
Defective notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) for levying penalty. The key points are: The phrases "conceal" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars" in Section 271(1)(c) carry distinct meanings. Where penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c), the specific ground must be clearly spelled out to provide the assessee a proper opportunity for defense. Penalty proceedings being penal in nature, the charge must be unambiguous. The revenue cannot club both grounds of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal rightly held that the penalty levy u/s 271(1)(c) in the assessee's case was invalid due to the defective notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.