Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2841 to 2860 of 95916 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under Section 271DA was quashed because it rested on seized digital material and an alleged hawala token that had already been found inadmissible in the connected group case; once that electronic material could not validly support factual findings, it could not sustain the penalty. The Tribunal also held that the underlying transaction was a loan transaction and, if at all, fell within Section 269SS rather than Section 269ST. Since Section 269ST excludes transactions covered by Section 269SS, the penalty premised on Section 269ST was not legally tenable.
Penalty under Section 271DA was quashed because it rested on seized digital material and an alleged hawala token that had already been found inadmissible in the connected group case; once that electronic material could not validly support factual findings, it could not sustain the penalty. The Tribunal also held that the underlying transaction was a loan transaction and, if at all, fell within Section 269SS rather than Section 269ST. Since Section 269ST excludes transactions covered by Section 269SS, the penalty premised on Section 269ST was not legally tenable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
