Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
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 4888 
