Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E - Period of limitation - Apparently in this case, the first notice was issued on 15.12.2013 and second notice was issued on 16.01.2014 are identical. Therefore, from the date of notice dated 15.12.2013, the penalty order should have been passed on or before 30th June 2004 but were passed on 30th July 2014. Therefore, both the orders of the penalty are barred by limitation. - AT
Penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E - Period of limitation - Apparently in this case, the first notice was issued on 15.12.2013 and second notice was issued on 16.01.2014 are identical. Therefore, from the date of notice dated 15.12.2013, the penalty order should have been passed on or before 30th June 2004 but were passed on 30th July 2014. Therefore, both the orders of the penalty are barred by limitation. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
