Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 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 for excess deduction claimed u/s 10B. The assessee furnished all relevant facts for computing total income, and provided detailed explanations regarding the claim u/s 10B, including the number of manufacturing divisions, bifurcation of expenditure, and availability of carried forward losses. The explanation was not found false, and the onus to prove falsity lies on the revenue. The claim was an allowable deduction, though the quantum was reworked by the Assessing Officer using different arithmetic. All details and justifications were provided in the return itself. The amount of tax sought to be evaded under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was indeterminable for imposing penalty. The assessee's decision to not appeal the reduction of claim does not imply lack of bona fides. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty, and no interference is warranted.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for excess deduction claimed u/s 10B. The assessee furnished all relevant facts for computing total income, and provided detailed explanations regarding the claim u/s 10B, including the number of manufacturing divisions, bifurcation of expenditure, and availability of carried forward losses. The explanation was not found false, and the onus to prove falsity lies on the revenue. The claim was an allowable deduction, though the quantum was reworked by the Assessing Officer using different arithmetic. All details and justifications were provided in the return itself. The amount of tax sought to be evaded under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was indeterminable for imposing penalty. The assessee's decision to not appeal the reduction of claim does not imply lack of bona fides. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty, and no interference is warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
