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...
HC determined that mere non-completion of part-B of e-way bill does not automatically warrant penalty under Section 129 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. The court found no evidence of tax evasion attempt by the petitioner. Without a specific finding regarding intentional tax evasion, the penalty levy was deemed unsustainable. Consistent with prior judicial precedents, the court emphasized that procedural non-compliance alone cannot justify punitive action. The impugned order was consequently set aside, and the petition was allowed, effectively quashing the penalty imposed by the tax authorities.
HC determined that mere non-completion of part-B of e-way bill does not automatically warrant penalty under Section 129 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. The court found no evidence of tax evasion attempt by the petitioner. Without a specific finding regarding intentional tax evasion, the penalty levy was deemed unsustainable. Consistent with prior judicial precedents, the court emphasized that procedural non-compliance alone cannot justify punitive action. The impugned order was consequently set aside, and the petition was allowed, effectively quashing the penalty imposed by the tax authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.