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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 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 s. 270A(1) r/w s. 270A(9)(c) for alleged false expense claims was examined where the underlying addition comprised an ad hoc disallowance sustained at 20% on an estimated basis. Since the income adjustment was purely estimative and did not meet the statutory parameters of "under-reported income" warranting penal consequences, and the AO had not recorded the requisite satisfaction to justify levy under s. 270A, the penalty was held arbitrary and void ab initio. Penalty was quashed and the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Penalty under s. 270A(1) r/w s. 270A(9)(c) for alleged false expense claims was examined where the underlying addition comprised an ad hoc disallowance sustained at 20% on an estimated basis. Since the income adjustment was purely estimative and did not meet the statutory parameters of "under-reported income" warranting penal consequences, and the AO had not recorded the requisite satisfaction to justify levy under s. 270A, the penalty was held arbitrary and void ab initio. Penalty was quashed and the appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.