Membership-consent thresholds for oppression petitions are satisfied by unchallenged voter-list consents, while unsupported forgery claims require pro...
Juridical seat versus arbitral venue determines supervisory court jurisdiction, while timely award challenges remain within the prescribed limitation ...
The ITAT Surat held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to a defective notice and estimation of income on bogus purchases. The notice u/s 274 was issued mechanically without specifying whether the penalty was for 'Concealment of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. The additions were based on estimation without a definite finding on the quantum of concealment, rendering the penalty unsustainable. Legal precedent from the jurisdictional High Court supported this decision, citing cases such as CIT vs. Subhas Trading Co., Navjivan Oil Mills, and Valimkbhai H. Patel. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deemed not sustainable in this case.
The ITAT Surat held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to a defective notice and estimation of income on bogus purchases. The notice u/s 274 was issued mechanically without specifying whether the penalty was for 'Concealment of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. The additions were based on estimation without a definite finding on the quantum of concealment, rendering the penalty unsustainable. Legal precedent from the jurisdictional High Court supported this decision, citing cases such as CIT vs. Subhas Trading Co., Navjivan Oil Mills, and Valimkbhai H. Patel. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deemed not sustainable in this case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
