Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld because the assessee...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidence.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld because the assessee failed to substantiate that the investment came from exempt agricultural income or any other explained source. No cogent documentary evidence was produced despite opportunities during assessment, penalty, and appellate proceedings, and the income was not disclosed in the original return or the return filed under section 148. The disclosure arose only after departmental detection in reassessment, so it was treated as non-voluntary. The plea of surrender to buy peace did not bar penalty, and Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) applied because bona fides and substantiation were not established.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld because the assessee failed to substantiate that the investment came from exempt agricultural income or any other explained source. No cogent documentary evidence was produced despite opportunities during assessment, penalty, and appellate proceedings, and the income was not disclosed in the original return or the return filed under section 148. The disclosure arose only after departmental detection in reassessment, so it was treated as non-voluntary. The plea of surrender to buy peace did not bar penalty, and Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) applied because bona fides and substantiation were not established.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.