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...
Section 249(4)(b) could not be used to reject the quantum appeal where the record did not show taxable income in India and, on the assessee's consistent case, no obligation to pay advance tax arose. The Tribunal noted that the addition stemmed only from an unexplained source of investment in immovable property, not from returned or admitted income. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. The quantum matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity, and the consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also restored for fresh consideration.
Section 249(4)(b) could not be used to reject the quantum appeal where the record did not show taxable income in India and, on the assessee's consistent case, no obligation to pay advance tax arose. The Tribunal noted that the addition stemmed only from an unexplained source of investment in immovable property, not from returned or admitted income. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. The quantum matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity, and the consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also restored for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
