Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
