Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Concurrent anticipatory-bail jurisdiction permits applications before either forum, while secured evidence may negate custodial interrogation in GST e...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For assessment orders passed before 1 April 2025, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to impose or initiate penalty proceedings for contravention of cash loan or deposit restrictions under section 271D. Non-initiation of such penalty proceedings therefore could not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for revision under section 263. A revisionary order founded solely on that omission was set aside, and the taxpayer's appeal was allowed.
For assessment orders passed before 1 April 2025, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to impose or initiate penalty proceedings for contravention of cash loan or deposit restrictions under section 271D. Non-initiation of such penalty proceedings therefore could not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for revision under section 263. A revisionary order founded solely on that omission was set aside, and the taxpayer's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
