Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
