Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Penalties levied u/ss 271D and 271E were challenged. The assessee was found to have violated Sections 269SS and 269T. However, there was no concrete finding that the assessee accepted loans or repaid them in violation of these sections. The Revenue's only evidence was the statement of the Director of Sudama Resorts, whose cheques were found with the assessee. The assessee sought cross-examination of the Director, which was not granted by the Assessing Officer. This statement lacks evidentiary value as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Andaman Timber Industries. Moreover, the Director of Sudama Resorts had surrendered income related to the cheques found during the search. There was no clear finding based on authentic evidence that the assessee violated Sections 269SS and 269T. Therefore, the penalties u/ss 271D and 271E were not applicable, following the ITAT Pune's decision in Sneh Builders. The assessee's appeals were allowed.
Penalties levied u/ss 271D and 271E were challenged. The assessee was found to have violated Sections 269SS and 269T. However, there was no concrete finding that the assessee accepted loans or repaid them in violation of these sections. The Revenue's only evidence was the statement of the Director of Sudama Resorts, whose cheques were found with the assessee. The assessee sought cross-examination of the Director, which was not granted by the Assessing Officer. This statement lacks evidentiary value as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Andaman Timber Industries. Moreover, the Director of Sudama Resorts had surrendered income related to the cheques found during the search. There was no clear finding based on authentic evidence that the assessee violated Sections 269SS and 269T. Therefore, the penalties u/ss 271D and 271E were not applicable, following the ITAT Pune's decision in Sneh Builders. The assessee's appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
