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...
Section 43 penalty under the Black Money Act was held unsustainable where the foreign investment was disclosed in the audited balance sheet and in Part A-BS of the return, even though Schedule FA was left blank. The Tribunal held that the statutory trigger is failure to furnish information in the return of income, and that this requirement was met because the return was not silent on the foreign asset. A CBDT circular or FAQ could not widen the penalty provision. In the absence of any allegation that the investment was unexplained, unaccounted, or sourced from undisclosed foreign income, the omission was treated as a technical reporting lapse. The CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was affirmed.
Section 43 penalty under the Black Money Act was held unsustainable where the foreign investment was disclosed in the audited balance sheet and in Part A-BS of the return, even though Schedule FA was left blank. The Tribunal held that the statutory trigger is failure to furnish information in the return of income, and that this requirement was met because the return was not silent on the foreign asset. A CBDT circular or FAQ could not widen the penalty provision. In the absence of any allegation that the investment was unexplained, unaccounted, or sourced from undisclosed foreign income, the omission was treated as a technical reporting lapse. The CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.