Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss...
Levy of penalty against estimated income: ITAT rules penalty invalid due to inconsistent grounds for imposition. Precedents cited. Assessee's appeal allowed.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss 271(1)(c) versus 271(1B) for additions related to estimated income from share trading transactions. The assessing officer initially alleged 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' under 271(1)(c) but later changed the basis for penalty imposition. The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid as the AO's satisfaction for penalty imposition was not consistent, citing precedents like New Sorathia Engineering and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works. The Tribunal ruled that when the AO confirms penalty on a different ground than the original satisfaction under 271(1B), the penalty under 271(1)(c) is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss 271(1)(c) versus 271(1B) for additions related to estimated income from share trading transactions. The assessing officer initially alleged 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' under 271(1)(c) but later changed the basis for penalty imposition. The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid as the AO's satisfaction for penalty imposition was not consistent, citing precedents like New Sorathia Engineering and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works. The Tribunal ruled that when the AO confirms penalty on a different ground than the original satisfaction under 271(1B), the penalty under 271(1)(c) is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
