Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
