Penalty u/s 271DA for violating the provisions of Section 269ST ...

High Court Quashes Penalty Order for Section 269ST Violation, Cites Lack of Jurisdiction Due to Pre-2019 Application.

February 3, 2021

Case Laws Income Tax HC

Penalty u/s 271DA for violating the provisions of Section 269ST - Settlement Commission, under the proviso to Section 245F(2), with effect from 1st November, 2019 when the petitioner admittedly made the application under Section 245C before it, had the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matter relating to violation of Section 269ST of the Act also and the respondent, on 4th November, 2019 did not have the jurisdiction to impose penalty for violation of Section 269ST on the petitioner and the impugned order is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside and is hereby quashed. - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271DA for violating the provisions of Section 269ST ...

High Court Quashes Penalty Order for Section 269ST Violation, Cites Lack of Jurisdiction Due to Pre-2019 Application.

February 3, 2021

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

The Appellant sought payment of its pre-CIRP dues from the Respondent in a manner different from the approved resolution plan, which provided for payment of pre-CIRP...

The Delhi High Court considered the validity of an arbitral award and the jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council u/s 18 of the MSME Act. The key issue was the...

Penalty u/s 271D / 271E - violation of provisions of Sec.269SS and 269T - basis of presumption u/s 132(4A) - Period of limitation - The Tribunal found that the penalty...

Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) (Amendment) Rules, 2019

Depositories (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) (Amendment) Rules, 2019

Companies (Adjudication of Penalties) Amendment Rules, 2019

Penalty imposed u/s 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export by arranging lorries. Lack of admissible evidence showing knowledge of goods...

Customs broker's license suspension case involving violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. Gross mis-declaration...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - adjustment made u/s 92CA - penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the adjustment made u/s 92CA is not...

Customs broker's license revocation order set aside due to lack of evidence for alleged violations. Key findings: no proof of misdeclaration or undervaluation to...

Registration u/s 80G(5) - The rejection was based on allegations of discrepancy in the organization's name, violation of FCRA provisions, and involvement in religious...

SVLDRS - Recovery of arrears of tax in terms of Section 124(1)(c) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme Rules, 2019 in the Finance Act, 2019 -...

Penalty u/s 271D for violation of Section 269SS was challenged. ITAT held that where assessee received sale consideration for immovable property in cash exceeding Rs....

CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act for forged Special Import Licenses lacked clear evidence...

Reassessment notices issued u/s 148 for assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 were time-barred by limitation. Withdrawal of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) by the...

Quick Updates: