Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4301 to 4320 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty u/s 271D - additions were confirmed towards share application money as a colorable device - AO considered the same as deemed deposits and considered it as violation of section 2695S - AO has presumably failed to construe the transaction as well as meaning of section 269SS read with section 271D. The more surprising factor is that ld. Principal CIT (Admin.), who has given permission to file the appeal, failed to appreciate the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) before authorizing the revenue to file the appeal before the Tribunal. - AT
Penalty u/s 271D - additions were confirmed towards share application money as a colorable device - AO considered the same as deemed deposits and considered it as violation of section 2695S - AO has presumably failed to construe the transaction as well as meaning of section 269SS read with section 271D. The more surprising factor is that ld. Principal CIT (Admin.), who has given permission to file the appeal, failed to appreciate the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) before authorizing the revenue to file the appeal before the Tribunal. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
