Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
Panchnamas drawn during search were held unreliable because the panch witnesses were not shown to be local inhabitants, no reason was recorded for using distant witnesses, and they were not examined or made available for cross-examination. Statements recorded under section 14 were also treated as inadmissible because the mandatory procedure under section 9D was not followed before relying on them in adjudication. Once the panchnamas, statements and diary were excluded, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the manufacturer of the alleged clandestinely produced pan masala and gutkha or liable for duty, interest, penalty or confiscation. The demand for the later period failed, and the department's appeal for the earlier period was also dismissed.
Panchnamas drawn during search were held unreliable because the panch witnesses were not shown to be local inhabitants, no reason was recorded for using distant witnesses, and they were not examined or made available for cross-examination. Statements recorded under section 14 were also treated as inadmissible because the mandatory procedure under section 9D was not followed before relying on them in adjudication. Once the panchnamas, statements and diary were excluded, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was the manufacturer of the alleged clandestinely produced pan masala and gutkha or liable for duty, interest, penalty or confiscation. The demand for the later period failed, and the department's appeal for the earlier period was also dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
