Personal hearing requirements in GST adjudication were satisfied by prior opportunities and written submissions; appellate limitation received writ-pe...
Interactive flat panels meeting automatic data processing conditions are distinguished from monitors, while later classification clarifications apply ...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For limitation under section 275(1)(c), the relevant starting point was the date on which the AO recommended initiation of penalty proceedings to the competent authority; the Tribunal treated 11/09/2015 as that date and held that the outer time-limit expired on 31/03/2016. Because the penalty order under section 271C was passed on 19/04/2016, it was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal therefore quashed the penalty order.
For limitation under section 275(1)(c), the relevant starting point was the date on which the AO recommended initiation of penalty proceedings to the competent authority; the Tribunal treated 11/09/2015 as that date and held that the outer time-limit expired on 31/03/2016. Because the penalty order under section 271C was passed on 19/04/2016, it was time-barred and could not be sustained. The Tribunal therefore quashed the penalty order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
