Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee, a foreign-based company, initially failed to comply with the notice u/s 92D(3) within the statutory period of 60 days, responding on 25.03.2019 after a delay of 38 days. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the delay as minuscule and the reasons for non-compliance as bona fide and unintentional, given the peculiar circumstances of the assessee being a foreign entity and in the process of appointing a new authorized representative. The ITAT held that the penalty u/s 271G for non-compliance should be deleted, accepting the assessee's reasons for the inadvertent delay as reasonable. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty was allowed.
The assessee, a foreign-based company, initially failed to comply with the notice u/s 92D(3) within the statutory period of 60 days, responding on 25.03.2019 after a delay of 38 days. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the delay as minuscule and the reasons for non-compliance as bona fide and unintentional, given the peculiar circumstances of the assessee being a foreign entity and in the process of appointing a new authorized representative. The ITAT held that the penalty u/s 271G for non-compliance should be deleted, accepting the assessee's reasons for the inadvertent delay as reasonable. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
