Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The AT dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Special Director's refusal to confiscate Rs.89,70,000, concluding that no contravention of s.3(d) was made out because the alleged transfer was interrupted by enforcement action and never materialized; attempts to invoke s.3(c)/s.3(d) and penalty under s.13(2) did not justify confiscation. The tribunal declined to interfere with penalties of Rs.25,00,000 imposed on each appellant. Noting an unexplained 20-year retention, the AT directed the respondent to apply the withheld Rs.89,70,000 against the penalties and refund any surplus to the appellants. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The AT dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Special Director's refusal to confiscate Rs.89,70,000, concluding that no contravention of s.3(d) was made out because the alleged transfer was interrupted by enforcement action and never materialized; attempts to invoke s.3(c)/s.3(d) and penalty under s.13(2) did not justify confiscation. The tribunal declined to interfere with penalties of Rs.25,00,000 imposed on each appellant. Noting an unexplained 20-year retention, the AT directed the respondent to apply the withheld Rs.89,70,000 against the penalties and refund any surplus to the appellants. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
