Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Review petition - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Tribunal sustaining the levy without providing an opportunity of hearing - Review applicant had paid entire tax amount for assessment years in question - Held that review applicant has not filed applications based on new facts - Materials collected during search never put to review applicant prior to filing voluntary revised returns - No deliberate or wilful omission on part of review applicant - Review applicant on same footing as Dr. R. Gopalakrishnan entitled to same relief - Plea of review applicant being professional doctor rendering service to downtrodden people and levying penalty would affect mental status and professional career appears bona fide and reasonable, merits acceptance - Judgment recalled, Tax Case Appeals disposed of by setting aside order.
Review petition - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Tribunal sustaining the levy without providing an opportunity of hearing - Review applicant had paid entire tax amount for assessment years in question - Held that review applicant has not filed applications based on new facts - Materials collected during search never put to review applicant prior to filing voluntary revised returns - No deliberate or wilful omission on part of review applicant - Review applicant on same footing as Dr. R. Gopalakrishnan entitled to same relief - Plea of review applicant being professional doctor rendering service to downtrodden people and levying penalty would affect mental status and professional career appears bona fide and reasonable, merits acceptance - Judgment recalled, Tax Case Appeals disposed of by setting aside order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
