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 quashed because the assessment order did not record the Assessing Officer's satisfaction that the assessee had committed a contravention attracting that penalty. The Tribunal held that such recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order is a jurisdictional prerequisite for valid initiation of penalty proceedings; a mere reference to penalty under section 271(1)(c) was insufficient. In the absence of that foundation, the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to proceed, the penalty order was invalid, and the appellate order sustaining it was set aside.
Penalty under section 271D was quashed because the assessment order did not record the Assessing Officer's satisfaction that the assessee had committed a contravention attracting that penalty. The Tribunal held that such recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order is a jurisdictional prerequisite for valid initiation of penalty proceedings; a mere reference to penalty under section 271(1)(c) was insufficient. In the absence of that foundation, the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to proceed, the penalty order was invalid, and the appellate order sustaining it was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
