Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
