No doubt the discretion to levy the penalty or to drop the ...

Authority's Inconsistent Penalty Approach for Same Bank Deemed Arbitrary, Subject to Deletion under Statute.

May 21, 2020

Case Laws Income Tax AT

No doubt the discretion to levy the penalty or to drop the penalty proceedings is entirely the discretion of the appropriate authority who is authorized under the statute, however, where in case of same bank, different approach is adopted by the same authority in exercise of its powers so bestowed by the statutory, the same reflect arbitrariness in absence of any distinguishing facts and circumstances so highlighted and any such arbitrary levy of penalty reflects non-application of mind by such authority and penalty so levied is liable to be deleted.

View Source

← Previous Next →

No doubt the discretion to levy the penalty or to drop the ...

Authority's Inconsistent Penalty Approach for Same Bank Deemed Arbitrary, Subject to Deletion under Statute.

May 21, 2020

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Recovery of deemed Cenvat Credit availed through fraudulent bills - penalty under Rule 27 imposed - liability of bank - no penalty can be imposed on the banking company - AT

HC ruled on penalty imposition under Companies Act s.203(5) for non-compliance with managerial appointment requirements. Authority's discretionary power in penalty...

Penalty proceedings under CGST Act cannot be initiated after State GST Authorities have initiated proceedings on the same subject matter. Once proceedings are initiated...

Validity of order of passed by the Revisional authority - The respondent authorities acting as quasi judiciary authority by invoking the power under statute are expected...

From perusal of Section 96(1)(b) of IBC, 2016, interim moratorium restrains ongoing or fresh legal action or proceeding regarding debt pertaining to personal guarantor,...

Appellate Authority affirmed impugned order without evidence regarding petitioner's intention to evade tax. Inconsistent approach rejecting petitioner's contention for...

Validity of attachment order - Seeking interim relief sought, that is for lifting of attachment of bank account pending appeal - The same cannot be considered as the...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus claim u/s 80C - The Tribunal found that there was a discrepancy in the application of penalties by the lower authorities. - While the...

ITAT set aside penalty under s271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act following deletion of quantum addition in earlier proceedings. The underlying dispute involved classification...

Refusal of the Bank to invoke the Bank Guarantee - Adjudicating Authority has taken the view that since CIRP proceedings were continuing the Bank Guarantee cannot be...

The core summary is that banks constituted as 'corresponding new banks' under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 are not covered...

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

HC partially allowed the petition challenging GST late fee and penalty impositions. Court upheld late fee under Section 47(2) of GST Act for delayed annual return...

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained deposits in Dubai bank account - CIT(A) has observed that taxability of sum in Dubai Bank account is beyond the jurisdiction of Indian tax...

The subordinate authority is not empowered to supersede the orders passed by the appellate authority and an administrative discipline requires that the subordinate...

Quick Updates: