Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5941 to 5960 of 96257 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 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 4813 
Join Channel 
