Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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...
For limitation under section 275(1)(c), the relevant starting point was the date on which the AO recommended initiation of penalty proceedings to the competent authority; the Tribunal treated 11/09/2015 as that date and held that the outer time-limit expired on 31/03/2016. Because the penalty order under section 271C was passed on 19/04/2016, it was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal therefore quashed the penalty order.
For limitation under section 275(1)(c), the relevant starting point was the date on which the AO recommended initiation of penalty proceedings to the competent authority; the Tribunal treated 11/09/2015 as that date and held that the outer time-limit expired on 31/03/2016. Because the penalty order under section 271C was passed on 19/04/2016, it was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal therefore quashed the penalty order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
