Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 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 penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The appellant contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based solely on estimations, making it ineligible for penalty imposition. The ITAT upheld this argument, citing legal precedents to support its decision. Additionally, the court noted the defective nature of the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer, further bolstering the appellant's case. - Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appellant's appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty.
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The appellant contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based solely on estimations, making it ineligible for penalty imposition. The ITAT upheld this argument, citing legal precedents to support its decision. Additionally, the court noted the defective nature of the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer, further bolstering the appellant's case. - Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appellant's appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
