Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure of the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account - burden of proof - The ITAT acknowledged the difference in the burden of proof between penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings. Mere disallowance or addition in quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Considering the mitigating circumstances, including the deceased status of the appellant and the difficulty in independently proving circumstantial facts, the tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was not justified and directed its reversal and deletion.
Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure of the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account - burden of proof - The ITAT acknowledged the difference in the burden of proof between penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings. Mere disallowance or addition in quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Considering the mitigating circumstances, including the deceased status of the appellant and the difficulty in independently proving circumstantial facts, the tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was not justified and directed its reversal and deletion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
