Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Non-compliance with notices under section 142(1) did not justify penalty under section 272A(1)(d) where the assessee later furnished detailed replies with supporting material, the Assessing Officer verified and accepted that material, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3). The Tribunal treated the earlier default as merged in the subsequent compliance and as deemed condoned by the regular assessment, so the penalty was held not leviable and was deleted in the lead matter and connected appeals.
Non-compliance with notices under section 142(1) did not justify penalty under section 272A(1)(d) where the assessee later furnished detailed replies with supporting material, the Assessing Officer verified and accepted that material, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3). The Tribunal treated the earlier default as merged in the subsequent compliance and as deemed condoned by the regular assessment, so the penalty was held not leviable and was deleted in the lead matter and connected appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
