Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5861 to 5880 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.