Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Penalty is levied in the ...

Court Rules Tribunal Erred in Allowing Rectification Petition for Penalty Imposed Under Incorrect Section of Income Tax Act.

March 11, 2021

Case Laws Income Tax HC

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Penalty is levied in the instant case under Section 271(1)(i)(a) of the Act (as it then stood), while the explanation applies to the cases covered by Section 271(1)(i)(b) of the Act (as it then stood). Viewed in the above light also, we are of the view that the rectification petition could not have been allowed by the Tribunal. - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Penalty is levied in the ...

Court Rules Tribunal Erred in Allowing Rectification Petition for Penalty Imposed Under Incorrect Section of Income Tax Act.

March 11, 2021

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

The Court held that imposing a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee while granting bail is illegal. The Apex Court, in Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India, ruled that...

Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

Doctrine of merger applied to impugned order of Appellate Tribunal imposing penalty on appellant. Held that since Supreme Court's judgment on appeal against Tribunal's...

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's refund application for unutilized input tax credit. The court held that the...

The case involves disputes u/s CST Act and KVAT Rules. The High Court addressed issues including whether a time gap exceeding 100 days between transit end and buyer...

This case deals with the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, imposed for disallowance of losses on forex derivatives treated as speculative losses and...

The adjudicating authority is bound to explain the alleged contraventions to the person proceeded against or their legal representatives. Rule 4(4) mandates...

In a recent High Court case, the issue of whether advertisement expenditure could be considered as allowable revenue expenditure was discussed. The ITAT allowed the...

The Calcutta High Court considered the maintainability of a petition challenging the penalty imposed u/s 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The...

Since Appellant were paying the duty utilizing the CENVAT Credit they cannot be charged for contravention of the provisions of Rule 4, 8(1), 8(3) & 8(3A) of the Central...

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 8(3A) - penalty under Rule 25 is not permissible, but penalty under Rule 27 is to be imposed - AT

The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale...

Burden of proof in a dishonored cheque case under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the legality of the sentence imposed. The court held that the accused failed to...

Power of tribunal to review application - It is the well laid down proposition of law that ‘in the absence of any power of ‘Review’ or ‘Recall’ vested with the...

The High Court quashed the orders of the Appellate and Adjudicating Authorities imposing penalty on the petitioner for transporting goods after the expiry of the e-way...

Quick Updates: