Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - period of limitation - treatment of lease rent income - in the revised return, assessee claimed the same as income from house property to claim 30% standard deduction - AO treated the income of the assessee as income from business and initiated penalty proceedings - ITAT found that the penalty order was indeed unsustainable as it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit under section 275. Moreover, the ITAT emphasized that the mere rejection of a claim by the Revenue does not automatically warrant penalty imposition unless there is evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - period of limitation - treatment of lease rent income - in the revised return, assessee claimed the same as income from house property to claim 30% standard deduction - AO treated the income of the assessee as income from business and initiated penalty proceedings - ITAT found that the penalty order was indeed unsustainable as it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit under section 275. Moreover, the ITAT emphasized that the mere rejection of a claim by the Revenue does not automatically warrant penalty imposition unless there is evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
