Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The ITAT held that levying penalty u/s 271D for cash sale transactions is not acceptable. Addition of cash loans below Rs. 20,000 as unexplained deposits u/s 68 was made in the assessment order, but the revenue did not dispute the genuineness of the flat purchase and sale. The assessee entered into an agreement for an under-construction flat, which later went to another party due to financial issues. The ITAT found the AR's submissions realistic, setting aside the CIT(A) order and directing the AO to delete the penalty. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT held that levying penalty u/s 271D for cash sale transactions is not acceptable. Addition of cash loans below Rs. 20,000 as unexplained deposits u/s 68 was made in the assessment order, but the revenue did not dispute the genuineness of the flat purchase and sale. The assessee entered into an agreement for an under-construction flat, which later went to another party due to financial issues. The ITAT found the AR's submissions realistic, setting aside the CIT(A) order and directing the AO to delete the penalty. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.