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...
The ITAT Mumbai upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for bogus LTCG. Exemption u/s 10(38) denied as revised income declaration was not voluntary but in response to u/s 148 notice. Citing MAK Data case, voluntary disclosure doesn't prevent penal proceedings. Assessee failed to provide evidence for share transaction genuineness. Additional income declared only after u/s 148 notice, not voluntarily. No merit in argument that penalty cannot be imposed as returned and assessed income are same. Penalty upheld as bogus LTCG was claimed exempt initially. Assessee's appeal dismissed.
The ITAT Mumbai upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for bogus LTCG. Exemption u/s 10(38) denied as revised income declaration was not voluntary but in response to u/s 148 notice. Citing MAK Data case, voluntary disclosure doesn't prevent penal proceedings. Assessee failed to provide evidence for share transaction genuineness. Additional income declared only after u/s 148 notice, not voluntarily. No merit in argument that penalty cannot be imposed as returned and assessed income are same. Penalty upheld as bogus LTCG was claimed exempt initially. Assessee's appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
