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 ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
