Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
