Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
Penalty under section 271D was unsustainable because the Tribunal found that the impugned receipts were made through banking channels by cheque on the dates shown, and the lower authorities had proceeded on an incorrect assumption about the transaction year; once cheque receipts were established, no contravention of section 269SS survived. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also not leviable because the loss claim was based on audited accounts and related business expenditure, and mere acceptance of disallowance did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Applying Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal deleted both penalties.
Penalty under section 271D was unsustainable because the Tribunal found that the impugned receipts were made through banking channels by cheque on the dates shown, and the lower authorities had proceeded on an incorrect assumption about the transaction year; once cheque receipts were established, no contravention of section 269SS survived. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also not leviable because the loss claim was based on audited accounts and related business expenditure, and mere acceptance of disallowance did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Applying Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal deleted both penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
