Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96047 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 was unsustainable because the Tribunal found that the impugned receipts were made through banking channels by cheque on the dates shown, and the lower authorities had proceeded on an incorrect assumption about the transaction year; once cheque receipts were established, no contravention of section 269SS survived. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also not leviable because the loss claim was based on audited accounts and related business expenditure, and mere acceptance of disallowance did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Applying Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal deleted both penalties.
Penalty under section 271D was unsustainable because the Tribunal found that the impugned receipts were made through banking channels by cheque on the dates shown, and the lower authorities had proceeded on an incorrect assumption about the transaction year; once cheque receipts were established, no contravention of section 269SS survived. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also not leviable because the loss claim was based on audited accounts and related business expenditure, and mere acceptance of disallowance did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Applying Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal deleted both penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
