Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 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 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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
