Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 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 allowed the petition and set aside the impugned appellate decision to the extent it refused complete relief to the petitioner. The court held that initiation of proceedings under section 74 requires a recorded finding of fraud, mis-statement or suppression of fact with intent to evade tax, which is absent on the record; accordingly proceedings framed and penalties levied under section 130(3) read with section 122 could not be sustained insofar as they relied on section 74-type allegations. The matter was remitted for reassessment limited to available findings, and any enhanced liability attributable to non-fraudulent discrepancies was confined to the reduced quantum previously accepted.
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned appellate decision to the extent it refused complete relief to the petitioner. The court held that initiation of proceedings under section 74 requires a recorded finding of fraud, mis-statement or suppression of fact with intent to evade tax, which is absent on the record; accordingly proceedings framed and penalties levied under section 130(3) read with section 122 could not be sustained insofar as they relied on section 74-type allegations. The matter was remitted for reassessment limited to available findings, and any enhanced liability attributable to non-fraudulent discrepancies was confined to the reduced quantum previously accepted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
