Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the non-resident assessee against the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d), holding that there was no willful default in compliance with statutory notices due to lack of effective service. The assessee, residing outside India for over thirty years with income not taxable in India, was unaware of the assessment and penalty proceedings until receipt of a demand notice via email. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices as required under the Act, particularly considering the assessee's non-resident status. The Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance resulted from lack of knowledge rather than deliberate neglect or defiance. Consequently, imposing penalty in these circumstances would be unjust. The penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was cancelled, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the non-resident assessee against the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d), holding that there was no willful default in compliance with statutory notices due to lack of effective service. The assessee, residing outside India for over thirty years with income not taxable in India, was unaware of the assessment and penalty proceedings until receipt of a demand notice via email. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices as required under the Act, particularly considering the assessee's non-resident status. The Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance resulted from lack of knowledge rather than deliberate neglect or defiance. Consequently, imposing penalty in these circumstances would be unjust. The penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was cancelled, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.