Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was examined on whether initiation was vitiated due to non-specification of the exact charge, i.e., "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars." The penalty notice was found to be omnibus, retaining both limbs without striking off the inapplicable one or otherwise indicating the precise ground, thereby denying clear notice of the allegation. Relying on binding precedent that such ambiguity invalidates penalty initiation, the tribunal's deletion of penalty was upheld, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed for absence of any substantial question of law. - HC
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was examined on whether initiation was vitiated due to non-specification of the exact charge, i.e., "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars." The penalty notice was found to be omnibus, retaining both limbs without striking off the inapplicable one or otherwise indicating the precise ground, thereby denying clear notice of the allegation. Relying on binding precedent that such ambiguity invalidates penalty initiation, the tribunal's deletion of penalty was upheld, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed for absence of any substantial question of law. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
