Personal hearing requirements in GST adjudication were satisfied by prior opportunities and written submissions; appellate limitation received writ-pe...
Interactive flat panels meeting automatic data processing conditions are distinguished from monitors, while later classification clarifications apply ...
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 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
