Petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to submit detailed disclosures and documents for re-consideration; notices for 2019-23 may be adjudicated on me...
Confiscation and duty recovery quashed where licensing records show export obligation discharged; customs lacks jurisdiction absent licence annulment ...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10161 to 10180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that the term "may" in Section 43 of the BM Act is directory and not to be construed as "shall," therefore imposition of penalty for non-disclosure of foreign assets in Schedule FA is not automatic; the Assessing Officer retains discretion to impose or waive penalty based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal found the appellants failed to demonstrate a bona fide omission and noted material inaccuracies and non-reporting, but clarified that a prior decision did not bind the Division Bench on whether penalty is mandatory nor considered Section 46's requirement of hearing. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench to determine the penalty merits in accordance with law.
ITAT held that the term "may" in Section 43 of the BM Act is directory and not to be construed as "shall," therefore imposition of penalty for non-disclosure of foreign assets in Schedule FA is not automatic; the Assessing Officer retains discretion to impose or waive penalty based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal found the appellants failed to demonstrate a bona fide omission and noted material inaccuracies and non-reporting, but clarified that a prior decision did not bind the Division Bench on whether penalty is mandatory nor considered Section 46's requirement of hearing. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench to determine the penalty merits in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.