Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Penalty levied u/s 271D for contravention of Section 269SS, which restricts cash transactions above a specified sum for immovable property. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to reconcile the assessment order and penalty order regarding the violation of Section 269SS. The penalty order should have referenced the AO's communication proposing the penalty initiation. The AO is required to record the satisfaction of Section 269SS violation and reference for penalty initiation in the assessment order itself. The interpretation of "specified sum" as a residuary term encompassing all cash transactions beyond a specified amount is incorrect. The amended Section 269SS applies to cash received as an advance for immovable property transactions, not to the final payment made at the time of registration and execution of the sale deed. The assessee had received cash against the sale of multiple registered sale deeds, not as an advance. Since the payment was made before the sub-registrar during registration, it does not violate Section 269SS. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s 271D is against the provisions of law and is quashed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Penalty levied u/s 271D for contravention of Section 269SS, which restricts cash transactions above a specified sum for immovable property. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to reconcile the assessment order and penalty order regarding the violation of Section 269SS. The penalty order should have referenced the AO's communication proposing the penalty initiation. The AO is required to record the satisfaction of Section 269SS violation and reference for penalty initiation in the assessment order itself. The interpretation of "specified sum" as a residuary term encompassing all cash transactions beyond a specified amount is incorrect. The amended Section 269SS applies to cash received as an advance for immovable property transactions, not to the final payment made at the time of registration and execution of the sale deed. The assessee had received cash against the sale of multiple registered sale deeds, not as an advance. Since the payment was made before the sub-registrar during registration, it does not violate Section 269SS. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s 271D is against the provisions of law and is quashed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
