Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5561 to 5580 of 96208 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
