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...
AT held that the company and its KMPs engaged in self-funding of preferential allotment in breach of s.77(2) Companies Act and Regulations 3,4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations, and that several allottee and conduit entities aided the scheme; the Tribunal found a proximate fund flow of Rs.3.42 crore originating from the company into preferential subscriptions and sustained liability for that quantum. However, AT accepted that conduit entities had received Rs.10.47 crore and that no sufficient linkage was established for the excess transfers; considering those facts and attendant evidence, AT allowed the appeal challenging the impugned penalties as applied jointly and severally to the appellants, while rejecting delay-based dismissal.
AT held that the company and its KMPs engaged in self-funding of preferential allotment in breach of s.77(2) Companies Act and Regulations 3,4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations, and that several allottee and conduit entities aided the scheme; the Tribunal found a proximate fund flow of Rs.3.42 crore originating from the company into preferential subscriptions and sustained liability for that quantum. However, AT accepted that conduit entities had received Rs.10.47 crore and that no sufficient linkage was established for the excess transfers; considering those facts and attendant evidence, AT allowed the appeal challenging the impugned penalties as applied jointly and severally to the appellants, while rejecting delay-based dismissal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
