Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
