Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3341 to 3360 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" ?
The ITAT held that penalty under section 271D could not stand because the AO proceeded on an incorrect premise that receipt of cash on transfer of immovable property through a subsisting GPA made section 269SS applicable. A sale deed could validly be executed through a GPA until cancelled, and there was no material that the GPA had been cancelled before execution of the sale deed. On that basis, the invocation of the penal provision was erroneous, and the Tribunal followed co-ordinate Bench decisions on the same issue. The appeal was allowed and the penalty deleted.
The ITAT held that penalty under section 271D could not stand because the AO proceeded on an incorrect premise that receipt of cash on transfer of immovable property through a subsisting GPA made section 269SS applicable. A sale deed could validly be executed through a GPA until cancelled, and there was no material that the GPA had been cancelled before execution of the sale deed. On that basis, the invocation of the penal provision was erroneous, and the Tribunal followed co-ordinate Bench decisions on the same issue. The appeal was allowed and the penalty deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
