Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Penalty under section 271AAB remained leviable on undisclosed cash found during search because the disclosure was made only after seizure and admission under section 132(4), so the assessee could not escape penalty merely because the returned income later matched the finally assessed income after quantum relief. The Tribunal held that clause (a) was inapplicable because the assessee did not specify or substantiate the manner of deriving the income, clause (b) was inapplicable because the income had in fact been admitted, and the case therefore fell under clause (c). As no extraordinary circumstances justified the maximum rate, the penalty under clause (c) was restricted to 30% of the undisclosed income.
Penalty under section 271AAB remained leviable on undisclosed cash found during search because the disclosure was made only after seizure and admission under section 132(4), so the assessee could not escape penalty merely because the returned income later matched the finally assessed income after quantum relief. The Tribunal held that clause (a) was inapplicable because the assessee did not specify or substantiate the manner of deriving the income, clause (b) was inapplicable because the income had in fact been admitted, and the case therefore fell under clause (c). As no extraordinary circumstances justified the maximum rate, the penalty under clause (c) was restricted to 30% of the undisclosed income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.