Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT deleted penalty under section 271D where the notice was defective and the alleged contravention did not match the penalty finally imposed: the notice referred to section 271DA read with section 269ST, while the penalty was levied for violation of section 269SS. On merits, the cash receipt formed part of a genuine sale transaction, the Revenue did not dispute that the property deal had materialised, part of the consideration had been paid through banking channels, and the tax consequences were disclosed by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted practical difficulty arising from the purchaser's non-resident status. In these circumstances, the penalty was held unsustainable.
ITAT deleted penalty under section 271D where the notice was defective and the alleged contravention did not match the penalty finally imposed: the notice referred to section 271DA read with section 269ST, while the penalty was levied for violation of section 269SS. On merits, the cash receipt formed part of a genuine sale transaction, the Revenue did not dispute that the property deal had materialised, part of the consideration had been paid through banking channels, and the tax consequences were disclosed by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted practical difficulty arising from the purchaser's non-resident status. In these circumstances, the penalty was held unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
