Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the disallowance arose from a deduction claim under section 80IB(10) on which courts had taken divergent views. The Tribunal treated the issue as debatable, noted that the controversy was pending before the Supreme Court, and applied Reliance Petroproducts to hold that a merely unsustainable claim does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. On that basis, the statutory conditions for penalty were not met and the penalty was deleted.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the disallowance arose from a deduction claim under section 80IB(10) on which courts had taken divergent views. The Tribunal treated the issue as debatable, noted that the controversy was pending before the Supreme Court, and applied Reliance Petroproducts to hold that a merely unsustainable claim does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. On that basis, the statutory conditions for penalty were not met and the penalty was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
