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...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed as the assessee did not make disallowance u/s 14A or compute income for administrative/indirect common expenses incurred in relation to earning exempt income. The court held that making an incorrect claim in law cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee maintained separate books, investments were from own capital, interest payments were for business, and direct expenditure for exempt income was debited to personal accounts. No information in the return was found incorrect or inaccurate. The case was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. and ITAT Delhi's decision in M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P.) Ltd., where the issue was debatable and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The revenue failed to show that the assessee concealed or furnished incorrect particulars of income.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed as the assessee did not make disallowance u/s 14A or compute income for administrative/indirect common expenses incurred in relation to earning exempt income. The court held that making an incorrect claim in law cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee maintained separate books, investments were from own capital, interest payments were for business, and direct expenditure for exempt income was debited to personal accounts. No information in the return was found incorrect or inaccurate. The case was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd. and ITAT Delhi's decision in M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P.) Ltd., where the issue was debatable and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The revenue failed to show that the assessee concealed or furnished incorrect particulars of income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.