Administrative fraud classification suspension does not halt independent criminal investigation or warrant-based searches into alleged economic offenc...
Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as assessee failed to file return u/s 139 or in response to notice u/s 148, despite receiving substantial contract receipts of Rs. 2.5 crore. ITAT upheld penalty, rejecting assessee's plea that addition was estimated, as assessee defied statutory requirements and didn't furnish details during assessment proceedings. Assessee's contention of auditor's failure being the cause was rejected, as filing return u/s 139 is assessee's responsibility. Penalty confirmed.
AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as assessee failed to file return u/s 139 or in response to notice u/s 148, despite receiving substantial contract receipts of Rs. 2.5 crore. ITAT upheld penalty, rejecting assessee's plea that addition was estimated, as assessee defied statutory requirements and didn't furnish details during assessment proceedings. Assessee's contention of auditor's failure being the cause was rejected, as filing return u/s 139 is assessee's responsibility. Penalty confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.