Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant, during reassessment proceedings, had filed their return of income but failed to provide sufficient documentation to substantiate claimed expenses. Notably, the assessing officer disallowed 50% of the claimed expenses, but did not specifically charge the appellant with concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the assessment order. In the subsequent penalty order, the assessing officer invoked twin charges without clear evidence to support them. Considering the lack of specific charges and evidence, the Tribunal directed the assessing officer to delete the penalty.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant, during reassessment proceedings, had filed their return of income but failed to provide sufficient documentation to substantiate claimed expenses. Notably, the assessing officer disallowed 50% of the claimed expenses, but did not specifically charge the appellant with concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the assessment order. In the subsequent penalty order, the assessing officer invoked twin charges without clear evidence to support them. Considering the lack of specific charges and evidence, the Tribunal directed the assessing officer to delete the penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
