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) could not survive once the related interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) had already been deleted in the quantum appeal, because the basis for the penalty no longer existed. On the subsidy issue, the Tribunal treated the capital-versus-revenue characterisation of the grant as a debatable question and held that such a disputed classification did not establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore deleted in full.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive once the related interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) had already been deleted in the quantum appeal, because the basis for the penalty no longer existed. On the subsidy issue, the Tribunal treated the capital-versus-revenue characterisation of the grant as a debatable question and held that such a disputed classification did not establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore deleted in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
