Prior Sanction Requirement: absence of prescribed approval invalidates reassessment notice; limitation also bars notice if escaped income below thresh...
Eligibility for exemption depends on strict construction of the product description; reapers without binder are ineligible, but confiscation and penal...
Customs jurisdiction defined for Principal Commissioner, Vishakhapatnam, covering specified ports, districts and India's adjacent EEZ; effective on pu...
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the underlying quantum addition for alleged bogus purchases represented only an estimated profit element and not a definite, proved concealment. The ITAT deleted the penalty for Assessment Year 2010-2011 on the ground that estimated additions alone do not justify penalty. For Assessment Year 2011-2012, the appellate order sustaining penalty was set aside because the assessee's submissions had not been considered; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity and addressing the material placed on record.
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the underlying quantum addition for alleged bogus purchases represented only an estimated profit element and not a definite, proved concealment. The ITAT deleted the penalty for Assessment Year 2010-2011 on the ground that estimated additions alone do not justify penalty. For Assessment Year 2011-2012, the appellate order sustaining penalty was set aside because the assessee's submissions had not been considered; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity and addressing the material placed on record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.