Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
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 
