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...
The HC dismissed the challenge, holding that the assessee had disclosed acquisition of the foreign asset in the original returns for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 and in the return filed under s.153A prior to issuance of any penalty notice; books of account corroborated the disclosure. Applying the principle that a return filed under s.153A qualifies as a return for purposes of s.139(1), the tribunal and commissioner correctly concluded there was no failure to disclose and that imposition of the Rs.10 lakh penalty was not warranted on account of a remediable technical formatting defect. No substantial question of law arises.
The HC dismissed the challenge, holding that the assessee had disclosed acquisition of the foreign asset in the original returns for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 and in the return filed under s.153A prior to issuance of any penalty notice; books of account corroborated the disclosure. Applying the principle that a return filed under s.153A qualifies as a return for purposes of s.139(1), the tribunal and commissioner correctly concluded there was no failure to disclose and that imposition of the Rs.10 lakh penalty was not warranted on account of a remediable technical formatting defect. No substantial question of law arises.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
