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...
Respondent declared miscellaneous income of Rs. 6 crores to IT Department. Department proposed service tax demand and penalty u/s 78(1) based on director's statement that income was from construction services. CESTAT held demand unsustainable as statement alone inadmissible without corroborative evidence. Department failed to produce evidence that income was from taxable services. Demand based on assumptions and presumptions. Original authority rightly dropped demand for lack of evidence. Department's appeal dismissed by CESTAT.
Respondent declared miscellaneous income of Rs. 6 crores to IT Department. Department proposed service tax demand and penalty u/s 78(1) based on director's statement that income was from construction services. CESTAT held demand unsustainable as statement alone inadmissible without corroborative evidence. Department failed to produce evidence that income was from taxable services. Demand based on assumptions and presumptions. Original authority rightly dropped demand for lack of evidence. Department's appeal dismissed by CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
