Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
