Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The appellant contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based solely on estimations, making it ineligible for penalty imposition. The ITAT upheld this argument, citing legal precedents to support its decision. Additionally, the court noted the defective nature of the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer, further bolstering the appellant's case. - Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appellant's appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty.
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The appellant contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based solely on estimations, making it ineligible for penalty imposition. The ITAT upheld this argument, citing legal precedents to support its decision. Additionally, the court noted the defective nature of the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer, further bolstering the appellant's case. - Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appellant's appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
