Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties and orders
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory procedure in section 138B(1)(b) were treated as inadmissible where coercion was alleged and medical evidence supported assault; therefore those statements could not underpin rejection of declared transaction value under Rule 12 or re-determination under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007. Emails and attached invoices whose provenance was not satisfactorily established while the appellant was in custody were also excluded. Consequently, treatment of the appellant as beneficial owner and consequent demands, penalties and confiscation founded on the unsupported valuation and inadmissible evidence were set aside.
Statements recorded under section 108 without the mandatory procedure in section 138B(1)(b) were treated as inadmissible where coercion was alleged and medical evidence supported assault; therefore those statements could not underpin rejection of declared transaction value under Rule 12 or re-determination under Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007. Emails and attached invoices whose provenance was not satisfactorily established while the appellant was in custody were also excluded. Consequently, treatment of the appellant as beneficial owner and consequent demands, penalties and confiscation founded on the unsupported valuation and inadmissible evidence were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
