Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
