Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Penalty under section 271D could not be sustained because no satisfaction was recorded in the assessment order initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that where the returned income was accepted and no quantum addition was made, there was no occasion in the assessment order to record the requisite satisfaction, and the Assessing Officer could not validly proceed by issuing a separate show-cause notice and penalty order. Relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal treated the absence of recorded satisfaction as fatal to jurisdiction and allowed the assessee's appeal without examining the merits.
Penalty under section 271D could not be sustained because no satisfaction was recorded in the assessment order initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that where the returned income was accepted and no quantum addition was made, there was no occasion in the assessment order to record the requisite satisfaction, and the Assessing Officer could not validly proceed by issuing a separate show-cause notice and penalty order. Relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal treated the absence of recorded satisfaction as fatal to jurisdiction and allowed the assessee's appeal without examining the merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.