Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
Penalty under section 271D cannot survive once the reassessment orders and the recorded satisfaction forming its basis are quashed, because the alleged section 269SS violation loses its substratum. The Tribunal also held that levy of penalty requires reliable independent evidence of actual acceptance of cash loans or deposits; third-party statements and alleged coded entries, without corroboration in the assessee's books or other incriminating material, were insufficient. As the related additions had already been deleted and no separate proof of cash borrowing was established, the penalties for both assessment years were held unsustainable and directed to be deleted.
Penalty under section 271D cannot survive once the reassessment orders and the recorded satisfaction forming its basis are quashed, because the alleged section 269SS violation loses its substratum. The Tribunal also held that levy of penalty requires reliable independent evidence of actual acceptance of cash loans or deposits; third-party statements and alleged coded entries, without corroboration in the assessee's books or other incriminating material, were insufficient. As the related additions had already been deleted and no separate proof of cash borrowing was established, the penalties for both assessment years were held unsustainable and directed to be deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
