Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
