Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 imposed under s.112(a)(ii) on the appellant (formerly M/s Bentley Motors). The Tribunal held that the foundational order confiscating goods under s.111(m) as against other persons had already been quashed by final order dated 18.11.2024, which alone vitiated the basis for penal liability of the appellant. Further, the Tribunal found no evidence of mala fides or of any act or omission by the appellant that rendered the goods liable to confiscation under s.111(m); supplementary invoices and account adjustments were disclosed during the investigation. Accordingly, the s.112 penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 imposed under s.112(a)(ii) on the appellant (formerly M/s Bentley Motors). The Tribunal held that the foundational order confiscating goods under s.111(m) as against other persons had already been quashed by final order dated 18.11.2024, which alone vitiated the basis for penal liability of the appellant. Further, the Tribunal found no evidence of mala fides or of any act or omission by the appellant that rendered the goods liable to confiscation under s.111(m); supplementary invoices and account adjustments were disclosed during the investigation. Accordingly, the s.112 penalty was unsustainable and was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
