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 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 4824 
Join Channel 
