Prospective valuation amendment limits reassessment: unamended fair market value reference could not justify reopening based on a registered valuer's ...
Exemption for examination-related services rejected where recipients were commercial entities; suppression sustained extended limitation and penalties...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1281 to 1300 of 95957 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.