Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee and upheld the CIT(A)'s quashing of the penalty under s.271E. The Tribunal held the penalty order was time-barred under s.275(1)(c) since the limitation expired on 31.03.2023 but the penalty was imposed on 28.08.2023. Alternatively, the Tribunal found the transactions did not fall within the prohibitions of ss.269SS/269T and thus did not attract s.271E. The Tribunal also noted absence of requisite satisfaction recorded in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings, rendering any levy unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled and the revenue's demand set aside.
ITAT allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee and upheld the CIT(A)'s quashing of the penalty under s.271E. The Tribunal held the penalty order was time-barred under s.275(1)(c) since the limitation expired on 31.03.2023 but the penalty was imposed on 28.08.2023. Alternatively, the Tribunal found the transactions did not fall within the prohibitions of ss.269SS/269T and thus did not attract s.271E. The Tribunal also noted absence of requisite satisfaction recorded in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings, rendering any levy unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled and the revenue's demand set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
