Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95918 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 recording of satisfaction by the AO is a condition precedent to initiate penalty proceedings under s.271D for alleged contravention of s.269SS, and where the AO's satisfaction was embodied in the assessment order dated 30-12-2022 after statutory approval by the Addl. CIT, that date constitutes the date on which "action for imposition of penalty is considered as initiated" for purposes of s.275(1)(c). Applying the prescribed limitation, the penalty order had to be passed by 30-06-2023; the impugned penalty dated 31-08-2023 was therefore time-barred and held non est. The penalty order is quashed.
ITAT held that recording of satisfaction by the AO is a condition precedent to initiate penalty proceedings under s.271D for alleged contravention of s.269SS, and where the AO's satisfaction was embodied in the assessment order dated 30-12-2022 after statutory approval by the Addl. CIT, that date constitutes the date on which "action for imposition of penalty is considered as initiated" for purposes of s.275(1)(c). Applying the prescribed limitation, the penalty order had to be passed by 30-06-2023; the impugned penalty dated 31-08-2023 was therefore time-barred and held non est. The penalty order is quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
