Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
