HC upheld the Tribunal's discretionary power in reducing ...

Tribunal's Discretionary Power Under Section 19(1) Upheld: Penalty Reduction Validated Without Judicial Interference

April 29, 2025

Case Laws FEMA HC

HC upheld the Tribunal's discretionary power in reducing pre-deposit penalty to 20% under Section 19(1)'s second proviso. The court affirmed that when legislative discretion is granted to an authority, its exercise depends solely on the authority's satisfaction and opinion. The Tribunal's decision was deemed procedurally correct, balancing potential undue hardship against penalty realization. The HC concluded that appellate forums cannot scrutinize the merits of the Tribunal's discretionary decision, thus declining to intervene in the original order.

View Source

← Previous Next →

HC upheld the Tribunal's discretionary power in reducing ...

Tribunal's Discretionary Power Under Section 19(1) Upheld: Penalty Reduction Validated Without Judicial Interference

April 29, 2025

Case Laws FEMA HC

You may also like:

Levy of penalty - mis-declaration of goods - unflavoured boiled supari - reduction of the penalty under section 112 by the Commissioner (Appeals) - according to Revenue...

This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized...

The Appellate Tribunal found the Appellant Company guilty of contravening u/s 9(1)(a) of FERA 1973 by making payments to a person outside India without RBI permission....

Contravention of Sections 8(1) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - receiving foreign exchange payments in 1996-97 through fake export documents...

NCLAT upheld the capital reduction scheme under Section 66 of Companies Act, 2013. The tribunal found the selective capital reduction permissible, with 99.92%...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that every non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) gives a separate cause of action for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b)....

The ITAT examined multiple aspects of a tax penalty case involving undisclosed income. The tribunal found no justification for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) across various...

Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting...

Reduction in quantum of penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) (i) & (ii) - the Tribunal would say that there is no revenue loss because M/s.Sujana Metal Products Limited have...

Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for two types of additions: (1) the addition made u/s 50C on the difference between stamp duty value and sale...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Non-compliance with a notice issued u/s 142(1) - The Tribunal noted that in a previous round of proceedings, a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of...

The Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) was not legally valid. The Assessing Officer failed to...

The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income....

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...

Monetary limit for filing of appeal by revenue in case of penalty - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on bogus purchases - Quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are...

Quick Updates: