Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
ITAT ruled against penalty under Section 271D for alleged violation of Section 269SS regarding cash transactions in property transfer. The Tribunal held that while Section 269SS applies broadly to property transfers beyond simple buy-sell transactions, it targets actual recipients of funds, not intermediaries. The appellant, acting as a broker, merely facilitated payments between principals and wasn't the true recipient. Additionally, ITAT found reasonable cause under Section 273B, noting the relevant amendment to Section 269SS occurred after the transaction date. The appellant's limited education and role as middleman demonstrated absence of malafide intent. The Tribunal directed deletion of penalty, allowing the appeal.
ITAT ruled against penalty under Section 271D for alleged violation of Section 269SS regarding cash transactions in property transfer. The Tribunal held that while Section 269SS applies broadly to property transfers beyond simple buy-sell transactions, it targets actual recipients of funds, not intermediaries. The appellant, acting as a broker, merely facilitated payments between principals and wasn't the true recipient. Additionally, ITAT found reasonable cause under Section 273B, noting the relevant amendment to Section 269SS occurred after the transaction date. The appellant's limited education and role as middleman demonstrated absence of malafide intent. The Tribunal directed deletion of penalty, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
