Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2011 (2) TMI 987

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Archana Wadhwa:   The issue involved in the present appeals is as regards quantum of penalty required to be imposed under the provisions of Rule 96ZQ(5). It is seen that the Original Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty equivalent to the duty confirmed. The stay order of Dy. Commissioner was challenged by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) who reduced the penalty.   2. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ge to vires of Rule 96ZQ(5). However, we make it clear that the appellants would be at liberty to raise the issue, if any, before the adjudicating authorities. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand.   3. In a parallel proceeding, the Revenue also challenged the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reduced penalty on the ground that equal amount of penalty is required to....