Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The ITAT reduced the penalty imposed under Section 272B(2) from Rs. 23,20,000 to Rs. 10,000 for the assessee's failure to obtain and report PAN details of 232 customers who purchased jewellery. The Tribunal determined that multiple instances of non-compliance constituted a single default rather than separate offenses, considering this was the first year after the PAN reporting requirement was introduced (effective January 2016). The decision aligned with precedent from the Delhi HC in DHTC Logistic Ltd. and was consistent with the AO's previous treatment of similar defaults by the same assessee. The ITAT noted that the statutory amendment specifying 'ten thousand rupees for each such default' only came into effect from September 2019.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
