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...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Penalty under the law arises as a discretionary sanction and authorities may impose it; however, where a State government organisation lacked malafide intent, faced staffing and procedural difficulties, and ultimately filed the required correction statement rectifying defects, the tribunal found that quasi criminal penalty was inappropriate and granted leniency by setting aside the penalty. The note emphasises that discretion (expressed by 'may') permits relief where procedural obstacles and absence of deliberate default are established and where administrative assistance was lacking, supporting mitigation rather than enforcement.
Penalty under the law arises as a discretionary sanction and authorities may impose it; however, where a State government organisation lacked malafide intent, faced staffing and procedural difficulties, and ultimately filed the required correction statement rectifying defects, the tribunal found that quasi criminal penalty was inappropriate and granted leniency by setting aside the penalty. The note emphasises that discretion (expressed by 'may') permits relief where procedural obstacles and absence of deliberate default are established and where administrative assistance was lacking, supporting mitigation rather than enforcement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.