Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1121 to 1140 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.