Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Mumbai, in a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for estimation of income on bogus purchases, held that when additions are based on estimation, no penalty can be imposed. The CIT(A) had limited the disallowance to 17.5%, which was further reduced to 8% by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that adhoc disallowance of purchases does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee based on facts, circumstances, and legal precedents.
The ITAT Mumbai, in a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for estimation of income on bogus purchases, held that when additions are based on estimation, no penalty can be imposed. The CIT(A) had limited the disallowance to 17.5%, which was further reduced to 8% by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that adhoc disallowance of purchases does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee based on facts, circumstances, and legal precedents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.