TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 was sustainable when the main noticee had already obtained discharge under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme.
Analysis: The appellant's liability was considered in the backdrop of the main party having already been discharged and having obtained Form-4 under the scheme. On that basis, the basis for sustaining the penalty against the appellant was held to be absent.
Conclusion: The penalty was waived and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
