Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Electronic printouts, recovered emails and retracted statements...
Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unproved.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Electronic printouts, recovered emails and retracted statements could not sustain an allegation of undervaluation where statutory requirements for admissibility of electronic evidence were not met and cross-examination was not properly afforded. Following its earlier decision in the same investigation, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the department's challenge, CESTAT held that such uncorroborated material was insufficient to justify enhancement of value, differential duty, confiscation or penalties. The impugned appellate order was therefore set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
Electronic printouts, recovered emails and retracted statements could not sustain an allegation of undervaluation where statutory requirements for admissibility of electronic evidence were not met and cross-examination was not properly afforded. Following its earlier decision in the same investigation, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the department's challenge, CESTAT held that such uncorroborated material was insufficient to justify enhancement of value, differential duty, confiscation or penalties. The impugned appellate order was therefore set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.