Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3261 to 3280 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that revision under section 264 is maintainable against a penalty order under section 270A even if the order is otherwise appealable, because the bar in section 264(4) is limited to the specific situations stated there. The Principal Commissioner therefore wrongly declined to examine the revision on merits. On the penalty, the Court found no under-reported income where the PF/ESI disallowance had already been added in the section 143(1)(a) intimation and the assessment merely repeated the same addition; the statutory ingredients of section 270A were not met. The assessee also made full disclosure and advanced a bona fide claim, attracting the section 270A(6)(a) exception. The revisional and penalty orders were quashed.
The HC held that revision under section 264 is maintainable against a penalty order under section 270A even if the order is otherwise appealable, because the bar in section 264(4) is limited to the specific situations stated there. The Principal Commissioner therefore wrongly declined to examine the revision on merits. On the penalty, the Court found no under-reported income where the PF/ESI disallowance had already been added in the section 143(1)(a) intimation and the assessment merely repeated the same addition; the statutory ingredients of section 270A were not met. The assessee also made full disclosure and advanced a bona fide claim, attracting the section 270A(6)(a) exception. The revisional and penalty orders were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
