Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
