Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained where the assessee had disclosed all particulars in the return and the claim was only disallowed as a matter of law. Applying CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Ltd., the ITAT held that concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is required for penalty, and a mere unsustainable claim for document and stamp charges related to increase in authorised share capital does not meet that test. The penalty was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained where the assessee had disclosed all particulars in the return and the claim was only disallowed as a matter of law. Applying CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Ltd., the ITAT held that concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is required for penalty, and a mere unsustainable claim for document and stamp charges related to increase in authorised share capital does not meet that test. The penalty was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
