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...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer solely based on the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission withdrawing immunity from penalty and prosecution, without adhering to the due process prescribed under the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to make reference to assessment proceedings, record satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and issue notice u/s 274 before initiating penalty proceedings. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were arbitrary, not in accordance with law, and void ab initio. Regarding penalty u/s 271AAA, the Assessing Officer did not refer to the conditions prescribed, statement recorded u/s 132(4), or opportunity given to the assessee to explain the undisclosed income. Consequently, the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA was illegal, and the penalties levied u/s 271AAA were quashed.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer solely based on the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission withdrawing immunity from penalty and prosecution, without adhering to the due process prescribed under the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to make reference to assessment proceedings, record satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and issue notice u/s 274 before initiating penalty proceedings. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were arbitrary, not in accordance with law, and void ab initio. Regarding penalty u/s 271AAA, the Assessing Officer did not refer to the conditions prescribed, statement recorded u/s 132(4), or opportunity given to the assessee to explain the undisclosed income. Consequently, the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA was illegal, and the penalties levied u/s 271AAA were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
