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" ?
Penalty under section 271D could not be sustained because the foundational allegation of acceptance of a cash loan was not conclusively established. The Tribunal noted that the assessment based on a seized loose paper and the lender's statement had already been quashed on a legal ground, leaving no final finding that the assessee had actually availed the loan. It also found that the alleged broker's identity was not established and no enquiry was made, so the claimed contravention of section 269SS remained unproved. The penalty was therefore directed to be deleted and the appeal was allowed.
Penalty under section 271D could not be sustained because the foundational allegation of acceptance of a cash loan was not conclusively established. The Tribunal noted that the assessment based on a seized loose paper and the lender's statement had already been quashed on a legal ground, leaving no final finding that the assessee had actually availed the loan. It also found that the alleged broker's identity was not established and no enquiry was made, so the claimed contravention of section 269SS remained unproved. The penalty was therefore directed to be deleted and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
