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 considered levy of penalty u/s 271B for a default related to Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB. The appellant obtained the audit report on time but inadvertently submitted wrong information in the ITR. Tax authorities rejected this explanation, alleging non-compliance with u/s 44AB. However, the auditor confirmed preparing the audit report timely. The ITAT found the penalty unjust as the audit report was obtained within the deadline, and the mistake was due to selecting the wrong column in the ITR. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271B was deemed inapplicable, and the appellant's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT considered levy of penalty u/s 271B for a default related to Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB. The appellant obtained the audit report on time but inadvertently submitted wrong information in the ITR. Tax authorities rejected this explanation, alleging non-compliance with u/s 44AB. However, the auditor confirmed preparing the audit report timely. The ITAT found the penalty unjust as the audit report was obtained within the deadline, and the mistake was due to selecting the wrong column in the ITR. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271B was deemed inapplicable, and the appellant's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.