Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable where the assessee had disclosed the capital gains, deposited the sale proceeds in the Capital Gains Account Scheme within time, and retained the unutilised amount in that account. The Tribunal held that failure to use the full amount within the stipulated period, caused by disputes with the builder, did not by itself establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee had also suo motu informed the AO before reassessment that the exemption period had expired and accepted the taxability of the balance. In the absence of deliberate suppression, the penalty was deleted.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable where the assessee had disclosed the capital gains, deposited the sale proceeds in the Capital Gains Account Scheme within time, and retained the unutilised amount in that account. The Tribunal held that failure to use the full amount within the stipulated period, caused by disputes with the builder, did not by itself establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee had also suo motu informed the AO before reassessment that the exemption period had expired and accepted the taxability of the balance. In the absence of deliberate suppression, the penalty was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
