BCD exemption for specified display assembly inputs extended for automotive, medical and industrial applications, with defined exclusions and sunset d...
Prospective valuation amendment limits reassessment: unamended fair market value reference could not justify reopening based on a registered valuer's ...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1441 to 1460 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
