Agreement-date stamp valuation requires the same registered property, fixed consideration, and qualifying payment; an unrelated prior booking cannot a...
Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 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" ?
Levy of penalty u/ss 271D and 271E was challenged - default u/ss 269SS and 269T - assessee received and repaid cash loans from directors and related concerns - assessee contended cash was received to meet urgent expenses at project site when funds were unavailable - argument that cash loans from directors were exempt from sections 269SS and 269T rejected as no such exception exists in statute - limitation argument rejected as proceedings completed within statutory limit - delay due to COVID-19 pandemic excluded - penalty levy inappropriate given assessee's business requiring frequent expenditure at distant project site and possibility of cash loans from directors due to exigency - appeals allowed by deleting penalties.
Levy of penalty u/ss 271D and 271E was challenged - default u/ss 269SS and 269T - assessee received and repaid cash loans from directors and related concerns - assessee contended cash was received to meet urgent expenses at project site when funds were unavailable - argument that cash loans from directors were exempt from sections 269SS and 269T rejected as no such exception exists in statute - limitation argument rejected as proceedings completed within statutory limit - delay due to COVID-19 pandemic excluded - penalty levy inappropriate given assessee's business requiring frequent expenditure at distant project site and possibility of cash loans from directors due to exigency - appeals allowed by deleting penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.