Mandatory textile export qualifiers distinguish flame-retardant fabrics from other listed fabrics for automated identification under the textiles ince...
Personal liberty safeguards restrict arrest after court-directed GST appearance, requiring interim release where authorities overreach pending proceed...
Alternative statutory remedy and delay bar GST writ challenges despite pending rectification, while distinct subject matter permits parallel proceedin...
Page of 4884
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 97661 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to be deleted. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income, while the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] passed the penalty order on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without issuing a fresh show-cause notice. The ITAT held that since the penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on one ground (concealment) and the CIT(A) passed the order on another ground (inaccurate particulars) without commencing fresh proceedings, the penalty order was without jurisdiction and bad in law. The assessee's agreement to offer the income to buy peace and avoid litigation did not cure the jurisdictional defect in the penalty proceedings.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to be deleted. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income, while the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] passed the penalty order on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without issuing a fresh show-cause notice. The ITAT held that since the penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on one ground (concealment) and the CIT(A) passed the order on another ground (inaccurate particulars) without commencing fresh proceedings, the penalty order was without jurisdiction and bad in law. The assessee's agreement to offer the income to buy peace and avoid litigation did not cure the jurisdictional defect in the penalty proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
