Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1121 to 1140 of 96262 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.