Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the respondents improperly sought a 5% compounding charge because such higher rate is chargeable only where an earlier offence has been lawfully compounded and the conditions of that compounding order have been complied with; where the first compounding application was rejected, no compounding order arose and 5% could not be claimed on the subsequent application. The petitioner's contention that the higher rate was inapplicable was accepted, the impugned letter dated 08.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the pending compounding application and any attendant criminal proceedings.
The HC held that the respondents improperly sought a 5% compounding charge because such higher rate is chargeable only where an earlier offence has been lawfully compounded and the conditions of that compounding order have been complied with; where the first compounding application was rejected, no compounding order arose and 5% could not be claimed on the subsequent application. The petitioner's contention that the higher rate was inapplicable was accepted, the impugned letter dated 08.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the pending compounding application and any attendant criminal proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
