Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 were vitiated because the show-cause notice failed to specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) was invoked, having referenced multiple charges at different stages without striking out inapplicable limbs. The Tribunal followed binding High Court and Supreme Court precedents rejecting notices in a standard format that do not clearly communicate the specific charge sought to be imposed. Consequentially, the penalty assessment was set aside as invalid for defective notice; any further penalty action must be preceded by a valid, specific notice compliant with the requirements of section 274 and relevant judicial decisions.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 were vitiated because the show-cause notice failed to specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) was invoked, having referenced multiple charges at different stages without striking out inapplicable limbs. The Tribunal followed binding High Court and Supreme Court precedents rejecting notices in a standard format that do not clearly communicate the specific charge sought to be imposed. Consequentially, the penalty assessment was set aside as invalid for defective notice; any further penalty action must be preceded by a valid, specific notice compliant with the requirements of section 274 and relevant judicial decisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
