Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive...
Assessee penalized for persistent non-compliance with s.142(1); penalty under s.271(1)(b) reduced to Rs.10,000 on procedural ground while non-compliance facts upheld
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive notices issued under s.142(1) and offered no reasonable explanation; non-compliance persisted during penalty proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A). However, ITAT found the AO erred in levying a composite penalty of Rs.20,000 under s.271(1)(b), observing that under s.271(1)(b) each distinct failure attracts a separate penalty and separate notice is requisite for multiple failures. Consequentially, ITAT reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000 and partly allowed the appeal, leaving the factual finding of non-compliance intact but modifying the quantum of penalty on procedural grounds.
ITAT upheld that the assessee failed to comply with successive notices issued under s.142(1) and offered no reasonable explanation; non-compliance persisted during penalty proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A). However, ITAT found the AO erred in levying a composite penalty of Rs.20,000 under s.271(1)(b), observing that under s.271(1)(b) each distinct failure attracts a separate penalty and separate notice is requisite for multiple failures. Consequentially, ITAT reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000 and partly allowed the appeal, leaving the factual finding of non-compliance intact but modifying the quantum of penalty on procedural grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.