Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. 271DA instead of u/s. 271D, which led to confusion and violated the assessee's right to a fair hearing. The initiation of penalty under the wrong section was deemed arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The defective notice denied the assessee the opportunity to defend effectively. The Tribunal held that strict compliance with Sec. 274 of the Act is necessary for imposing penalties. Regarding the cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was not justified as the assessee's explanations were not adequately addressed. The Tribunal also considered that the penalty notice was invalid, rendering the levied penalty unsustainable in law. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty levied was ordered to be deleted.
The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. 271DA instead of u/s. 271D, which led to confusion and violated the assessee's right to a fair hearing. The initiation of penalty under the wrong section was deemed arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The defective notice denied the assessee the opportunity to defend effectively. The Tribunal held that strict compliance with Sec. 274 of the Act is necessary for imposing penalties. Regarding the cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000, the Tribunal noted that the penalty was not justified as the assessee's explanations were not adequately addressed. The Tribunal also considered that the penalty notice was invalid, rendering the levied penalty unsustainable in law. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty levied was ordered to be deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
