Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c) - As the appellants had disclosed the income, after detection by the department and as per the terms of settlement, the assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings, to which, the appellants / assesses did not submit any explanation to the effect that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income, which culminated in imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c), we do not find any infirmity or illegality in initiating the penalty proceeding - HC
Penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c) - As the appellants had disclosed the income, after detection by the department and as per the terms of settlement, the assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings, to which, the appellants / assesses did not submit any explanation to the effect that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income, which culminated in imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c), we do not find any infirmity or illegality in initiating the penalty proceeding - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
