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 ...
Levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The ITAT ruled that since there was no variation between the returned and assessed income, there was no concealment of income by the assessee. - Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT highlighted that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be levied if there is concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which must be determined with reference to the returned income. - As there was no discrepancy between the returned and assessed income, the tribunal instructed the A.O. to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).
Levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The ITAT ruled that since there was no variation between the returned and assessed income, there was no concealment of income by the assessee. - Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT highlighted that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be levied if there is concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which must be determined with reference to the returned income. - As there was no discrepancy between the returned and assessed income, the tribunal instructed the A.O. to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
