Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Electronic evidence from a mobile phone was rejected because the statutory requirements for admissibility under Section 138C were not shown to be met, and the retrieved note did not match the import documents in specification or quantity. Comparable import data was also found insufficient because similarity in grade, dimensions, width and commercial level was not established, so rejection of the declared transaction value failed and undervaluation was not proved. The Tribunal further held that suppression was not made out where the show cause case rested on documents already supplied at import, making the extended period unavailable and the penalties unsustainable. Classification was left open.
Electronic evidence from a mobile phone was rejected because the statutory requirements for admissibility under Section 138C were not shown to be met, and the retrieved note did not match the import documents in specification or quantity. Comparable import data was also found insufficient because similarity in grade, dimensions, width and commercial level was not established, so rejection of the declared transaction value failed and undervaluation was not proved. The Tribunal further held that suppression was not made out where the show cause case rested on documents already supplied at import, making the extended period unavailable and the penalties unsustainable. Classification was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
