Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
