Appellate jurisdiction over baggage imports is excluded, requiring confiscation challenges involving passenger-carried gold to proceed by statutory re...
Article 227 review permits intervention in arbitration only for manifest, patent inherent jurisdictional defects, not representational authority dispu...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) was not legally valid. The Assessing Officer failed to prove actual service of notices u/s 142(1), and willful default by the assessee could not be established. The Tribunal observed that separate penalty proceedings should have been initiated for each failure, instead of a consolidated penalty order. In the absence of proof of service, the penalty was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) was not legally valid. The Assessing Officer failed to prove actual service of notices u/s 142(1), and willful default by the assessee could not be established. The Tribunal observed that separate penalty proceedings should have been initiated for each failure, instead of a consolidated penalty order. In the absence of proof of service, the penalty was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
