Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of penalties u/s 271D and 271E for the violation of sections 269SS and 269T, respectively - The Tribunal, after reviewing precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, emphasized that recording satisfaction in the assessment order regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings is mandatory. It was found that the AO had not recorded such satisfaction, rendering the penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E invalid. - Regarding period of limitation, the Tribunal noted that the reference for initiating penalty proceedings made by the AO to the Additional Commissioner was beyond the statutory limitation period. Therefore, the penalties imposed were considered time-barred and legally unsustainable.
Levy of penalties u/s 271D and 271E for the violation of sections 269SS and 269T, respectively - The Tribunal, after reviewing precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, emphasized that recording satisfaction in the assessment order regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings is mandatory. It was found that the AO had not recorded such satisfaction, rendering the penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E invalid. - Regarding period of limitation, the Tribunal noted that the reference for initiating penalty proceedings made by the AO to the Additional Commissioner was beyond the statutory limitation period. Therefore, the penalties imposed were considered time-barred and legally unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
