Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
