Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
