Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
A statement recorded under section 108 could not sustain penalty because the mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed, rendering the statement inadmissible for evidentiary reliance. Penalty under section 112(b) also failed because the statutory ingredients were not proved: there was no established dealing with goods liable to confiscation and no of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were so liable. On these findings, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal.
A statement recorded under section 108 could not sustain penalty because the mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed, rendering the statement inadmissible for evidentiary reliance. Penalty under section 112(b) also failed because the statutory ingredients were not proved: there was no established dealing with goods liable to confiscation and no of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were so liable. On these findings, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.