Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Pertaining to the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1), the Assessing Officer (AO) initially passed an order u/s 144, concluding the assessment on a best judgment basis and making an addition of Rs. 20 lakh to the assessee's total income at a special rate u/s 115BBE. However, upon perusal of the subsequent order passed pursuant to the Tribunal's directions, it was found that the AO accepted the total income declared by the assessee in its return of income, and no addition was made. Generally, the AO has the liberty to reconsider the levy of penalty, in accordance with the fresh assessment framed. Since in the present case, the assessee was assessed at the returned income in the second round of assessment proceedings, the penalty levied u/s 271AAC(1) was deemed unsustainable and quashed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
Pertaining to the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1), the Assessing Officer (AO) initially passed an order u/s 144, concluding the assessment on a best judgment basis and making an addition of Rs. 20 lakh to the assessee's total income at a special rate u/s 115BBE. However, upon perusal of the subsequent order passed pursuant to the Tribunal's directions, it was found that the AO accepted the total income declared by the assessee in its return of income, and no addition was made. Generally, the AO has the liberty to reconsider the levy of penalty, in accordance with the fresh assessment framed. Since in the present case, the assessee was assessed at the returned income in the second round of assessment proceedings, the penalty levied u/s 271AAC(1) was deemed unsustainable and quashed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.