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, an Appellate Tribunal, considered the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of prior period expenditure and ad hoc disallowance due to non-filing of relevant documents. The assessee inadvertently claimed a higher share of indexed costs of construction and improvement. Citing the case law RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD., it was established that a mere claim, even if rejected by the Assessing Officer, does not warrant penalty. The additional indexed costs of improvement claimed by the assessee were found to be inadvertent and did not result in any benefit. Therefore, the penalty was not justified as there was no evidence of the assessee benefiting from the inaccurate particulars of income. The appeal by the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of prior period expenditure and ad hoc disallowance due to non-filing of relevant documents. The assessee inadvertently claimed a higher share of indexed costs of construction and improvement. Citing the case law RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD., it was established that a mere claim, even if rejected by the Assessing Officer, does not warrant penalty. The additional indexed costs of improvement claimed by the assessee were found to be inadvertent and did not result in any benefit. Therefore, the penalty was not justified as there was no evidence of the assessee benefiting from the inaccurate particulars of income. The appeal by the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
