Penny-stock additions require transaction-specific evidence; general investigation material alone cannot establish undisclosed income or accommodation...
Transfer pricing comparability prioritises reliable external CUPs and foreign-currency LIBOR benchmarks for exports, borrowings and delayed receivable...
Section 153C satisfaction and seized electronic records sustained unexplained-investment addition, subject to proportionate ownership-share verificati...
AT upheld the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded u/s 40 FERA, despite subsequent retraction, holding that retraction alone does not establish involuntariness and noting sufficient independent and cogent corroborative evidence, including recovered documents, seized cash and corroborating statements. AT affirmed findings of contravention of Ss. 8(1), 8(2), 9(1)(f)(i) and 14 FERA, rejecting the appellant's challenge to the merits of the adjudication. However, considering the appellant's age and prior deposit of part of the penalty, AT exercised discretion to reduce the penalty to Rs. 9,00,000/-, directing adjustment of amounts already deposited/released. Appeal was thus partly allowed, limited to quantum of penalty.
AT upheld the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded u/s 40 FERA, despite subsequent retraction, holding that retraction alone does not establish involuntariness and noting sufficient independent and cogent corroborative evidence, including recovered documents, seized cash and corroborating statements. AT affirmed findings of contravention of Ss. 8(1), 8(2), 9(1)(f)(i) and 14 FERA, rejecting the appellant's challenge to the merits of the adjudication. However, considering the appellant's age and prior deposit of part of the penalty, AT exercised discretion to reduce the penalty to Rs. 9,00,000/-, directing adjustment of amounts already deposited/released. Appeal was thus partly allowed, limited to quantum of penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.