Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Penalty under section 271D was held impermissible while the assessment order was under challenge before a statutory appellate forum; the court reasoned that penalty proceedings should be kept in abeyance pending the outcome of quantum proceedings and accordingly set aside the impugned penalty order. The court relied on prior precedent to conclude that initiation or finalisation of penalty proceedings during subsistence of a quantum appeal defeats orderly adjudication; consequence: penalty order dated 9 December 2025 was quashed and penalty proceedings directed to be stayed until the quantum appeal is decided.
Penalty under section 271D was held impermissible while the assessment order was under challenge before a statutory appellate forum; the court reasoned that penalty proceedings should be kept in abeyance pending the outcome of quantum proceedings and accordingly set aside the impugned penalty order. The court relied on prior precedent to conclude that initiation or finalisation of penalty proceedings during subsistence of a quantum appeal defeats orderly adjudication; consequence: penalty order dated 9 December 2025 was quashed and penalty proceedings directed to be stayed until the quantum appeal is decided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
