Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Penalty u/s 271(c) was imposed on additions of 25% of non-verifiable purchases debited to the trading account. The addition was made on estimation of total turnover after rejecting the books of accounts. Notices u/s 133(6) were issued to various purchase parties, but all were returned by the postal authority, and the assessee did not produce the parties to confirm the same. The lower authorities observed that the revenue did not establish that the assessee had concealed or submitted inaccurate particulars of income to attract Section 271(1)(c). The addition was admittedly made on an estimate basis. The ratio of the judgment in Parasamal Babulal Jain and various ITAT pronouncements covered the assessee's case. Since the addition was made on an estimate basis, the penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The ITAT found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed it, deciding against the revenue.
Penalty u/s 271(c) was imposed on additions of 25% of non-verifiable purchases debited to the trading account. The addition was made on estimation of total turnover after rejecting the books of accounts. Notices u/s 133(6) were issued to various purchase parties, but all were returned by the postal authority, and the assessee did not produce the parties to confirm the same. The lower authorities observed that the revenue did not establish that the assessee had concealed or submitted inaccurate particulars of income to attract Section 271(1)(c). The addition was admittedly made on an estimate basis. The ratio of the judgment in Parasamal Babulal Jain and various ITAT pronouncements covered the assessee's case. Since the addition was made on an estimate basis, the penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The ITAT found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed it, deciding against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
