Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Admissibility of electronic evidence controls valuation and penalty exposure; non compliant e records and statements nullify revaluation and penalties...
Issue: Whether penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E were barred by limitation. The tribunal held that, applying sections 271D, 271E and 275(1) and following the Supreme Court precedent in Hissaria Brothers, the Assessing Officer's penalty orders were time-barred because they were not issued within the statutory limitation period; the appellate orders setting aside those penalties for being beyond limitation were lawful. Consequence: all four impugned penalty orders were quashed. - ITAT
Issue: Whether penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E were barred by limitation. The tribunal held that, applying sections 271D, 271E and 275(1) and following the Supreme Court precedent in Hissaria Brothers, the Assessing Officer's penalty orders were time-barred because they were not issued within the statutory limitation period; the appellate orders setting aside those penalties for being beyond limitation were lawful. Consequence: all four impugned penalty orders were quashed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
