Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
