Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Penalty under section 271D for alleged violation of section 269SS, based on receipt of cash exceeding the statutory threshold under an agreement to sell, was held unsustainable because the assessment order did not doubt the source, identity, or genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank. Applying binding precedent that, where the veracity of a cash deposit is in doubt, the proper course is an addition under section 68 rather than invoking sections 269SS/269T, it was held that those provisions were inapplicable on the admitted facts. Consequently, the penalty could not be levied and the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Penalty under section 271D for alleged violation of section 269SS, based on receipt of cash exceeding the statutory threshold under an agreement to sell, was held unsustainable because the assessment order did not doubt the source, identity, or genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank. Applying binding precedent that, where the veracity of a cash deposit is in doubt, the proper course is an addition under section 68 rather than invoking sections 269SS/269T, it was held that those provisions were inapplicable on the admitted facts. Consequently, the penalty could not be levied and the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
