Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty levied u/s 271DA - The Addl. CIT observed that the assessee had violated Section 269ST by splitting invoices for cash receipts of Rs. 2,00,000 or more from a single person. - The Appellate Tribunal noted that the items purchased were marriage dresses and different in nature. - Section 271DA prescribes penalties for contraventions of Section 269ST. The legislative intention behind the introduction of Section 269ST was to discourage cash transactions and promote digital economy. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents, emphasizing that penalties may not be imposed for technical or venial breaches of the Act. It considered the definitions of 'good cause' and 'sufficient cause,' as well as relevant case laws to determine the applicability of penalties. - The Tribunal concluded that no penalty was leviable.
Penalty levied u/s 271DA - The Addl. CIT observed that the assessee had violated Section 269ST by splitting invoices for cash receipts of Rs. 2,00,000 or more from a single person. - The Appellate Tribunal noted that the items purchased were marriage dresses and different in nature. - Section 271DA prescribes penalties for contraventions of Section 269ST. The legislative intention behind the introduction of Section 269ST was to discourage cash transactions and promote digital economy. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents, emphasizing that penalties may not be imposed for technical or venial breaches of the Act. It considered the definitions of 'good cause' and 'sufficient cause,' as well as relevant case laws to determine the applicability of penalties. - The Tribunal concluded that no penalty was leviable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
