Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA are characterised as onerous penalty provisions and require the department to make specific, pointed findings establishing serious violations and an intention to evade duty before imposing penalties; mere reliance on a retracted statement and bills of entry without detailing the petitioner's role, the false declaration attributed to them, or the value misdeclared is inadequate. Confiscation must operate as the predicate for penal liability. The document concludes that the existing order lacks substantive reasoned findings and directs a fresh hearing and a reasoned de novo adjudication with specific charges delineating the petitioner's role.
Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA are characterised as onerous penalty provisions and require the department to make specific, pointed findings establishing serious violations and an intention to evade duty before imposing penalties; mere reliance on a retracted statement and bills of entry without detailing the petitioner's role, the false declaration attributed to them, or the value misdeclared is inadequate. Confiscation must operate as the predicate for penal liability. The document concludes that the existing order lacks substantive reasoned findings and directs a fresh hearing and a reasoned de novo adjudication with specific charges delineating the petitioner's role.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.