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...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed despite the assessee withdrawing the exemption claim u/s 10(38) for Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of penny stocks and offering the corresponding amount as income from "Other sources" in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to dislodge the bona fide explanation of the assessee for withdrawing the LTCG exemption claim and offering the amount as income from "Other sources". Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) deems income disclosed in the return filed u/s 148 as concealed income only in specific circumstances, which were not applicable in the assessee's case. No inaccurate particulars or concealment of income were found, and the assessee withdrew the exemption claim and offered the amount as income to avoid litigation. Since penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are quasi-criminal, the assessee cannot be penalized in the absence of conclusive evidence of furnishing false particulars.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed despite the assessee withdrawing the exemption claim u/s 10(38) for Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of penny stocks and offering the corresponding amount as income from "Other sources" in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to dislodge the bona fide explanation of the assessee for withdrawing the LTCG exemption claim and offering the amount as income from "Other sources". Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) deems income disclosed in the return filed u/s 148 as concealed income only in specific circumstances, which were not applicable in the assessee's case. No inaccurate particulars or concealment of income were found, and the assessee withdrew the exemption claim and offered the amount as income to avoid litigation. Since penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are quasi-criminal, the assessee cannot be penalized in the absence of conclusive evidence of furnishing false particulars.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.