Inaccurate-particulars penalties fail where transfer-pricing documentation shows good faith and due diligence, and underlying capital-gains additions ...
Transfer-pricing tolerance for software sub-licensing falls within the services range, eliminating the adjustment and requiring TDS-credit verificatio...
Customs Broker due diligence requires prescribed KYC, not detecting misdeclarations discoverable only through physical examination, defeating licence ...
E-filing system failure permits exclusion of affected time in insolvency appeals, preventing tribunal technology defects from defeating timely filings...
Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 97755 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge u/s 278 of the Income Tax Act for abetting the filing of false returns. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of abetment by the petitioner of the assessee Munilal Devi. The non-examination of Munilal Devi as a witness was crucial, as her reply in the show cause notice blaming the petitioner could not be tested through cross-examination. The presumption of culpable mental state u/s 278E could not be invoked without proving the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted and discharged.
The High Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge u/s 278 of the Income Tax Act for abetting the filing of false returns. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of abetment by the petitioner of the assessee Munilal Devi. The non-examination of Munilal Devi as a witness was crucial, as her reply in the show cause notice blaming the petitioner could not be tested through cross-examination. The presumption of culpable mental state u/s 278E could not be invoked without proving the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted and discharged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
