Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 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 ruled on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for estimation of income on bogus purchases. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an estimate basis unless clear proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars is shown. As the addition was based on 6% of unproved purchases, considered an estimate, the penalty was deemed unjustified. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, allowing the assessee's appeal.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for estimation of income on bogus purchases. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an estimate basis unless clear proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars is shown. As the addition was based on 6% of unproved purchases, considered an estimate, the penalty was deemed unjustified. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
