Whether the Tribunal, while remitting the matter back, is right ...

High Court Challenges Tribunal's Directive Against Penalties Under Finance Act 1994, Citing Mandatory Statutory Requirements.

December 2, 2015

Case Laws Service Tax HC

Whether the Tribunal, while remitting the matter back, is right in law in giving a positive direction not to impose penalty on the 1st respondent, especially when the imposition of such penalty u/s 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 is not only automatic but also mandatory - Order of Tribunal is not correct - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Whether the Tribunal, while remitting the matter back, is right ...

High Court Challenges Tribunal's Directive Against Penalties Under Finance Act 1994, Citing Mandatory Statutory Requirements.

December 2, 2015

Case Laws Service Tax HC

You may also like:

Penalty proceedings u/s 270A - Applicable rate of penalty - The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the penalty notice cited under-reporting of income, the AO imposed...

The case involved a challenge to penalty orders u/ss 271D and 271E before the Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around the reassessment proceedings being quashed,...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - An order in the name of dead person - The Appellate Tribunal acknowledged that the penalty order was indeed issued in the name of a deceased...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) concerning the correct classification of income. The Assessing Officer treated the income as 'income...

The ITAT Mumbai considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found the...

The Appellate Tribunal considered two issues: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 270A. For the first, the Tribunal found the penalty notice defective as it did not specify...

The ITAT Mumbai addressed two key issues in the case. Firstly, regarding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the tribunal held that the absence of a tick mark on the notice did...

The Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of penalty proceedings u/s 270A due to the failure to specify relevant clauses. It was held that the penalty proceedings...

Proceedings against importer when the sole proprietor of M/s Ganpati Enterprises had expired - mis -declaration and short payment of duty - imposition of penalty on...

Levy of penalty for delay in Submission of Documents - finalization of the provisional assessments - The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in document submission but noted...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances in the quantum assessment order - whether any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars proved? - Tribunal directs...

Penalty proceedings for a default committed by a deceased - legal representatives - Levy of penalty u/s 271B for non-furnishing of Tax Audit Report within the prescribed...

The ITAT held that for penalty u/s 271D for contravention of section 269SS, recording satisfaction by AO is mandatory. Citing Jaya Laxmi Rice Mills case, it emphasized...

The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. 271DA instead of u/s. 271D, which led to confusion and violated the assessee's right to a fair hearing....

The Appellate Tribunal considered the levy of penalty u/s 270A. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed the penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) for misrepresentation of facts and...

Quick Updates: