Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of penalty proceedings u/s 270A due to the failure to specify relevant clauses. It was held that the penalty proceedings were flawed as the initiating notice did not pinpoint the specific clauses of sub-section 9, resulting in underreporting of income. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments, citing legal precedents that supported the Tribunal's jurisdiction to address pure legal questions in such proceedings. Accordingly, the penalty was deemed invalid and deleted based on the AO's failure to identify the specific default on the assessee's part as required by the law.
The Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of penalty proceedings u/s 270A due to the failure to specify relevant clauses. It was held that the penalty proceedings were flawed as the initiating notice did not pinpoint the specific clauses of sub-section 9, resulting in underreporting of income. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments, citing legal precedents that supported the Tribunal's jurisdiction to address pure legal questions in such proceedings. Accordingly, the penalty was deemed invalid and deleted based on the AO's failure to identify the specific default on the assessee's part as required by the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.