Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving the disallowance of electricity expenses leading to a penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Tribunal noted the essential role of a sorting machine, powered by electricity, in the business activity. The machine was part of the Plant & Machinery and depreciation had been allowed by the Assessing Officer. While the electricity bill was in the husband's name due to the machine being used in his godown, the lack of direct evidence led to disallowance. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be bona fide, not mala fide, as the claim was not entirely baseless. Citing a relevant case, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unwarranted, as the assessee had not concealed income intentionally. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving the disallowance of electricity expenses leading to a penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Tribunal noted the essential role of a sorting machine, powered by electricity, in the business activity. The machine was part of the Plant & Machinery and depreciation had been allowed by the Assessing Officer. While the electricity bill was in the husband's name due to the machine being used in his godown, the lack of direct evidence led to disallowance. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be bona fide, not mala fide, as the claim was not entirely baseless. Citing a relevant case, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unwarranted, as the assessee had not concealed income intentionally. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.