Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
Penalty under the tax provision for furnishing inaccurate particulars was contested where the assessee claimed interest under capitalisation rather than revenue deduction. Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court principle that an incorrect claim does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, and observed the assessing officers disallowance on capitalisation had attained finality. Subsequent treatment by the assesseecapitalising interest in a later yearfurther supported absence of deliberate inaccuracy. Consequently the appellate authority concluded the penalty was unsustainable and allowed the assessees grounds, setting aside the confirmed levy of penalty.
Penalty under the tax provision for furnishing inaccurate particulars was contested where the assessee claimed interest under capitalisation rather than revenue deduction. Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court principle that an incorrect claim does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars, and observed the assessing officers disallowance on capitalisation had attained finality. Subsequent treatment by the assesseecapitalising interest in a later yearfurther supported absence of deliberate inaccuracy. Consequently the appellate authority concluded the penalty was unsustainable and allowed the assessees grounds, setting aside the confirmed levy of penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.