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 Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This constituted a correct charge for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c). There was no defect in recording satisfaction or issuing the show cause notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) for initiating penalty proceedings. Once penalty proceedings were initiated on a definite charge and made known to the assessee through the assessment order and show cause notice, the assessee's objection holds no ground. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is proper and justified as it is a case of furnishing incorrect particulars of income by claiming business loss instead of speculative loss not permissible under the Act. The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This constituted a correct charge for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c). There was no defect in recording satisfaction or issuing the show cause notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) for initiating penalty proceedings. Once penalty proceedings were initiated on a definite charge and made known to the assessee through the assessment order and show cause notice, the assessee's objection holds no ground. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is proper and justified as it is a case of furnishing incorrect particulars of income by claiming business loss instead of speculative loss not permissible under the Act. The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
