Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 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" ?
HC affirmed penalty proceedings under s271D were time-barred due to procedural delays. Initial reference by ITO on 16.11.2016 was followed by Show Cause Notice from Additional CIT only on 10.11.2017, with final penalty order issued on 22.02.2018. This exceeded statutory limitation period from reference date. Revenue provided no justification for delayed issuance of show cause notice. Court rejected Revenue's reliance on TAM TAM precedent as fact-specific, distinguishing it from present case. Tribunal's order upheld, finding proceedings initiated beyond limitation period invalid. Questions of law resolved in assessee's favor, invalidating penalty imposed for s269SS violations.
HC affirmed penalty proceedings under s271D were time-barred due to procedural delays. Initial reference by ITO on 16.11.2016 was followed by Show Cause Notice from Additional CIT only on 10.11.2017, with final penalty order issued on 22.02.2018. This exceeded statutory limitation period from reference date. Revenue provided no justification for delayed issuance of show cause notice. Court rejected Revenue's reliance on TAM TAM precedent as fact-specific, distinguishing it from present case. Tribunal's order upheld, finding proceedings initiated beyond limitation period invalid. Questions of law resolved in assessee's favor, invalidating penalty imposed for s269SS violations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.