Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - An order in the name of dead person - The Appellate Tribunal acknowledged that the penalty order was indeed issued in the name of a deceased assessee. Despite being informed about the death of the assessee, the CIT(A) failed to consider this fact and passed the order in the name of the deceased person. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that penalty orders cannot be passed on deceased individuals and that notices should be issued to their legal heirs. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order issued by the CIT(A).
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - An order in the name of dead person - The Appellate Tribunal acknowledged that the penalty order was indeed issued in the name of a deceased assessee. Despite being informed about the death of the assessee, the CIT(A) failed to consider this fact and passed the order in the name of the deceased person. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that penalty orders cannot be passed on deceased individuals and that notices should be issued to their legal heirs. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order issued by the CIT(A).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.