Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Forensic extraction from a director's mobile phone was treated as admissible without a separate section 138C certificate because the phone was recovered under panchnama and examined in context with the surrounding record. Rule 12 permitted rejection of declared transaction value where reasonable doubt arose from the director's statement and parallel invoices showing higher values, so re-determination of assessable value was upheld. Misdeclaration of value attracted confiscation under section 111(m), and the same undisclosed invoices justified invocation of the extended period under section 28(4). Differential duty and equal penalty under section 114A were sustained, but separate penalties under section 114AA were set aside.
Forensic extraction from a director's mobile phone was treated as admissible without a separate section 138C certificate because the phone was recovered under panchnama and examined in context with the surrounding record. Rule 12 permitted rejection of declared transaction value where reasonable doubt arose from the director's statement and parallel invoices showing higher values, so re-determination of assessable value was upheld. Misdeclaration of value attracted confiscation under section 111(m), and the same undisclosed invoices justified invocation of the extended period under section 28(4). Differential duty and equal penalty under section 114A were sustained, but separate penalties under section 114AA were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
