Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
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.