Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6881 to 6900 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271D cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim of cash loans and simultaneously made an addition as unexplained investment under Section 69; the tribunal found this dual approach internally inconsistent. The legal principle applied was that imposition of penalty for contravention of the cash transaction prohibition requires an undisputed finding of cash receipt; absent acceptance of the loan claim by the assessing or appellate authority, initiation and levy of penalty is arbitrary. Outcome: appeal allowed and penalty under Section 271D deleted.
ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271D cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim of cash loans and simultaneously made an addition as unexplained investment under Section 69; the tribunal found this dual approach internally inconsistent. The legal principle applied was that imposition of penalty for contravention of the cash transaction prohibition requires an undisputed finding of cash receipt; absent acceptance of the loan claim by the assessing or appellate authority, initiation and levy of penalty is arbitrary. Outcome: appeal allowed and penalty under Section 271D deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
